Changes between Version 3 and Version 5 of Ticket #2123
- Timestamp:
- 2013-12-01T19:53:41Z (11 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #2123 – Description
v3 v5 32 32 Apart from the described use case, this setting would be useful in other scenarios where the storage node operator should exercise some control for other reasons. 33 33 34 I've discussed this scenario already with Daira and Warner to ensure that the described solution would work for this scenario. As per Zooko's suggestion, I've done this writeup to allow some discussion before jumping into coding in my own branch as the next step. That would be in a separate ticket, just to keep feature specs and implementation separate from this single use case, since I think other scenarios might come up that could benefit from implementing the proposed solution.34 I've discussed this scenario already with Daira and Warner to ensure that the described solution would work for this scenario. As per Zooko's suggestion, I've done this writeup to allow some discussion before jumping into coding in my own branch as the next step. That's in a separate ticket (#2124), just to keep feature specs and implementation separate from this single use case, since I think other scenarios might come up that could benefit from implementing the proposed solution. 35 35 36 I also collected implementation details while discussing this with Daira and Warner but I'll leave that for the followup ticket. 36 I've also collected implementation details while discussing this with Daira and Warner ~~ 37 but I'll leave that for the followup ticket~~ that can also be found at #2124. 37 38 38 39 Anyone else interested in this scenario? Suggestions/imporvements?
