|author||Joey Hess||2015-11-13 00:37:33 -0400|
|committer||Joey Hess||2015-11-13 00:37:33 -0400|
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/forum/REversable_property_changes')
1 files changed, 22 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/forum/REversable_property_changes/comment_5_4b876eae2404ea107ba65a3c879a4c2a._comment b/doc/forum/REversable_property_changes/comment_5_4b876eae2404ea107ba65a3c879a4c2a._comment
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+ subject="""comment 5"""
+It depends. If it makes sense for your property to remove the software
+when it's reverted, then make `installed` revertable like that.
+Maybe that doesn't make sense though, you only want to make sure it's
+installed before using it, but you don't necessarily want to remove it just
+because this one property that uses it gets reverted. You can express that
+ ((setup `requires` installed) <!> cleanup)
+I do think it was a good change, in propellor 2.13.0, to make "revertable
+`requires` nonrevertable" not be a RevertableProperty. Now when we want a
+RevertableProperty, we have to think about whether it makes sense to revert
+the whole thing or not; before this change we just got back a so-called
+RevertableProperty that was not actually fully revertable, and probably
+didn't think about it enough.