10:30 a.m.
Hi all,
Why the lifecycle events described in 11.5 are not introduced in their chronological
order? And what is the order logic here, because I’d like to at least stress that there
are not described in their actual sequence.
Antoine
11:37 a.m.
They basically are in chronological order, but in two groupings:
* Group 1: Global lifecycle events - those that are fired once
* Group 2: Discovery events - those that are fired once per thing processed
I’m not sure interleaving them would really make things clearer. It would be better to
describe the ordering as is.
On 3 Apr 2014, at 09:30, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net> wrote:
Hi all,
Why the lifecycle events described in 11.5 are not introduced in their chronological
order? And what is the order logic here, because I’d like to at least stress that there
are not described in their actual sequence.
Antoine
11:43 a.m.
Yes : no reordering in 11.5 now. We have the actual chronological order in 12.2 . I just
wanted to introduce the ordering logic in 11.5 to avoid people assuming it’s the
chronological order and perhaps be more explicit on the 12.2 pointer in 11.5
introduction.
Thanks
Antoine
Le 3 avr. 2014 à 11:37, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> a écrit :
They basically are in chronological order, but in two groupings:
* Group 1: Global lifecycle events - those that are fired once
* Group 2: Discovery events - those that are fired once per thing processed
I’m not sure interleaving them would really make things clearer. It would be better to
describe the ordering as is.
On 3 Apr 2014, at 09:30, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Why the lifecycle events described in 11.5 are not introduced in their chronological
order? And what is the order logic here, because I’d like to at least stress that there
are not described in their actual sequence.
>
> Antoine
3943
days inactive
3943
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Antoine Sabot-Durand -
Pete Muir