[Rt-devel] Any interest in the ability in RT to enforce CF value uniqueness?

[Jesse Vincent]

On Mon 20.Oct'08 at 15:16:11 +0200, Philip Kime wrote:
>
>> Right. And that's _not_ an acceptable change in the middle of a stable
>> series. If it's optional, that potentially becomes more reasonable.
>
>
> But it is optional to make a field mandatory. If you never check that  
> box on a field (and it's not checked by default), there is no difference 
> to how RT currently handles CFs.

My recollection was that the previous version of the code changed
the existing validation/mandatory functionality in a
non-backwards-compatible way.

Am I misremembering?

>
> PK
> --
> Dr Philip Kime
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.bestpractical.com/pipermail/rt-devel/attachments/20081020/60b55623/attachment.pgp