-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mar 27, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
The actual word "sibling" appears in a few places. It is in the
title of the subsection for configuring regular_(in|ex)clude_lists, and is mentioned in the detailed help for these settings in the phrase "site administrator may prohibit cross domain siblings". It is also in the configuration variable ALLOW_CROSS_DOMAIN_SIBLING.I would be reluctant to change this for 2.1.10 because the existing strings have been translated in a few updates, and I have been
actively trying to keep from making any further changes to i18n strings.As far as whether the 'sibling' relationship is symmetric or antisymmetric, this is a question that can only be answered if the definition of the relationship is precise enough. There are at least
two possible definitions that make sense to me.
List A is a sibling of list B iff list A appears in one of list B's regular_(in|ex)clude_lists attributes.
List A is a sibling of List B iff list A appears in one of list B's regular_(in|ex)clude_lists attributes or list B appears in one of list A's regular_(in|ex)clude_lists attributes.
Under definition 1), the 'sibling' relationship is neither symmetric
nor antisymmetric. Under definition 2), the 'sibling' relationship is symmetric and not antisymmetric.
I agree that it's too late to change this in 2.1.10, which probably
means it's too late to change for 2.1. I think you're follow up
rationale indicates that "sibling" is probably an acceptable term for
the feature given one way of looking at it, and because we have
nothing better. ;)
As far as a list being in it's own regular_(in|ex)clude_lists, as a result of Ian's original post, I changed the GUI to not allow it and changed the handler to ignore it, but log it.
Great, thanks!
- -Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkf+hjkACgkQ2YZpQepbvXEvFgCeJ3DPzLz+O46yRAxIZ4AVDJ/R 3KUAn34PSpL3WLrW6NaidzRFRgOJR7yP =B80W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----