This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[db-wg] RIPE Database: Cleaning-up Organisation Names in "descr:"
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Database: Cleaning-up Organisation Names in "descr:"
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Database: Cleaning-up Organisation Names in "descr:"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at instituut.net
Wed May 11 02:00:34 CEST 2016
Hi Denis, On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:48:33AM +0200, denis wrote: > We have been in this situation many times in the past where an > attribute has been deprecated or its value has been suspect for some > reason. > > What we did in the past was to make the suspect/deprecated attribute > into a "remarks:" attribute. Sometimes this approach was used, but certainly not always. > This addresses both concerns raised in response to your discussion in > this case. The old value is still there but it is clear it is not a > reliable description. Those who want to keep that value can simply > remove the "remarks:" tag. Those who don't want it can delete the > attribute. After maybe 6 months you can do a final cleanup and remove > any old value that has been left as a "remarks:". Had the attribute been an actual "user-owned" attribute, the "remarks:" approach might have made more sense, but this is not the case. Thanks for chiming in, Job ps. It still annoys me somewhat that the "remarks: For information on "status:"" remarks show up everywhere, years later. :)
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Database: Cleaning-up Organisation Names in "descr:"
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Database: Cleaning-up Organisation Names in "descr:"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]