New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Outstanding open issues / PRs in satori/go.uuid #32

Closed
acln0 opened this Issue Jul 19, 2018 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@acln0
Member

acln0 commented Jul 19, 2018

We should take a look at the open issues and pending PRs in https://github.com/satori/go.uuid and see if which ones would be worth tackling / adopting.

satori/go.uuid#44 was brought up, which I think is a good start.

Please comment with other issues or PRs if you think they'd be worth doing.

@theckman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theckman

theckman Jul 19, 2018

Member

I pinged PR-44 to ask if they'd be willing to re-open the PR here.

Member

theckman commented Jul 19, 2018

I pinged PR-44 to ask if they'd be willing to re-open the PR here.

@theckman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theckman

theckman Jul 23, 2018

Member

I think we might be nearing the ability to close this ticket. We should give a final 👍/👎on the feature requests that are outstanding.

Here's a quick classification of their PRs:

Desired / In-Progress

Fixed by this package:

Obsoleted by this package

Unsure if we want to support this:

Issues

Feature requests:

Deprecation requests:

Fixed by this package:

Random questions (should probably be closed):

Member

theckman commented Jul 23, 2018

I think we might be nearing the ability to close this ticket. We should give a final 👍/👎on the feature requests that are outstanding.

Here's a quick classification of their PRs:

Desired / In-Progress

Fixed by this package:

Obsoleted by this package

Unsure if we want to support this:

Issues

Feature requests:

Deprecation requests:

Fixed by this package:

Random questions (should probably be closed):

@theckman theckman self-assigned this Jul 23, 2018

@theckman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theckman

theckman Jul 23, 2018

Member

Do we want to support the ability to generate random MAC addresses for V1 IDs as an option? There an issue (64) and PR open (63) on the other repo to support this functionality, and figured I'd poll here before asking.

Member

theckman commented Jul 23, 2018

Do we want to support the ability to generate random MAC addresses for V1 IDs as an option? There an issue (64) and PR open (63) on the other repo to support this functionality, and figured I'd poll here before asking.

@theckman theckman added input wanted and removed help wanted labels Jul 23, 2018

@jadr2ddude

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jadr2ddude

jadr2ddude Jul 23, 2018

Member

I think it makes more sense to allow the user to specify a MAC than to generate a random MAC.

Member

jadr2ddude commented Jul 23, 2018

I think it makes more sense to allow the user to specify a MAC than to generate a random MAC.

@zerkms

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zerkms

zerkms Jul 26, 2018

Member

There is a hwAddrFunc field available: if we expose it via another constructor - a user may provide a function that returns a random mac every time.

Member

zerkms commented Jul 26, 2018

There is a hwAddrFunc field available: if we expose it via another constructor - a user may provide a function that returns a random mac every time.

@theckman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theckman

theckman Jul 28, 2018

Member

We're likely going to need to expose the generator implementation, so that it can be done that way. I think this could be done in a minor release if we wanted, as we'd be adding-on.

Member

theckman commented Jul 28, 2018

We're likely going to need to expose the generator implementation, so that it can be done that way. I think this could be done in a minor release if we wanted, as we'd be adding-on.

@theckman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theckman

theckman Jul 28, 2018

Member

@zerkms I took a swing based on your comment above: #42

Member

theckman commented Jul 28, 2018

@zerkms I took a swing based on your comment above: #42

@theckman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theckman

theckman Jul 29, 2018

Member

I'm going to close this issue out now, since I think we're engaged on the things we should be engaged on. We can follow those up in the individual PRs/issues.

Thank you for raising this, and for the input that was given by everyone.

Member

theckman commented Jul 29, 2018

I'm going to close this issue out now, since I think we're engaged on the things we should be engaged on. We can follow those up in the individual PRs/issues.

Thank you for raising this, and for the input that was given by everyone.

@theckman theckman closed this Jul 29, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment