Rename capabilities functions to be consistent #500
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Alex Saveau <saveau.alexandre@gmail.com>
|
I don't have an opinion about these names myself. @koutheir do these names look good? |
The renames I see now seem reasonable to me.
See: #493 (comment) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Partial #493
I didn't rename
capabilities_secure_bitsyet because that's the one we don't seem to have agreement on.Also did we say we actually wanted to go through a round of deprecation or just pull the plug? I just renamed things, though I can easily add back the old names as deprecated functions.