On 17/04/14 12:58, Denis Walker wrote:
Dear Job
If we implement attributes with generated values is there any point in keeping the "changed:" attribute at all?
It: -is user set to a vast range of dates (user's choice) with as many or few instances as you wish -is unreliable and possibly miss-leading to anyone else -will become, even if correct, a duplication of both the generated values and --list-versions output -requires mandatory email address -invites abuse
Maybe it could be deprecated if the proposed attributes are implemented?
I feel that this would make sense. The changed: attribute actually seems to convey very little in the way of concrete data.
Regards Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Team
On 17/04/2014 13:38, Job Snijders wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 04:33:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 15, Job Snijders<job@instituut.net> wrote:
I look forward to the group's feedback! Also, I'm interested in how people would use this attribute in their workflows or automation. No objections to an automatically enforced last-modified attribute, but then I would demote changed to an optional attribute to allow removing duplicate information. I already use changed this way, by only keeping the last one. I think making changed: optional is good addition to the proposal.
Kind regards,
Job