Code review comment for lp:~gmb/launchpad/bugwatch-next_check-bug-544238

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Graham Binns <email address hidden> wrote:
> On 22 March 2010 16:10, Jonathan Lange <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Why aren't you using the Job table for this?
>>
>
> Is there a reason to use the Job table? We decided last week that
> checkwatches shouldn't use the Jobs system; it doesn't fit the needs
> of our batched processing model particularly well and any such
> solution would be a kludge.
>

Oh right, I saw that decision mentioned on a bug report last week but
didn't see anything about the reasoning behind it. I'm surprised that
a system which bears such a strong resemblance to code imports
requires a significantly different model. Perhaps the resemblance is
only superficial.

> I'll happily rename the field, though.

Thanks. You might want to hold off until stub & Bjorn have their say though.

jml