references to "destroying" a machine

[John Meinel]

This is a case where we had 'destroy-machine' as an operation in 1.x but
changed the name for 2.0 to help with consistency, but that change didn't
propagate throughout the code base.

John
=:->
On Jun 22, 2016 2:40 AM, "James Beedy" <jamesbeedy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey whats up guys? - Will there be a 'destroy-machine' command in the
> future?
>
> On that, do you think it would it be wise, or confusing to refactor
> references to 'DestroyMachine' or 'DestroyedMachines' or  whatever
> variation of 'destroy machine' to a similar variation of 'remove machine'?
>
> I'm thinking references in the code base to variations of 'destroy
> machine' could be refactored to a similar variation of 'remove machine' for
> consistency/readability/understandability ..... I guess I'm a bit confused
> because 'destroying' a machine operations are carried out by the code,
> but 'destroying' a machine is not a user facing op. What I'm getting at (I
> think) is that there seems to be an unclear distinction on whether the
> references to 'destroying' a machine in the codebase should be 'removing'
> a machine - also function and class names including references to
> 'destroying' a machine?
>
>
> ~James
>
>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20160622/99173204/attachment-0001.html>