Reviewing 4fa5a3d

1. The radio button takes up a lot of space, and is somewhat ambiguous as to which value is actually selected. I would prefer that it only show the current value, and the user clicks on it to get a pop up menu to choose the desired value seems. This would use less space on the page and be less visually ambiguous.
2. The default seems to be that everything is "cache", unless explicitly marked persistent. This seems dangerous. Shouldn't the default be that everything is persistent, except for stuff that the system knows can be regenerated or is not very interesting?
3. If someone else has something marked "persistent", I still see it as "cache". This is even true for admin users.
4. In general surfacing this feature prominently on the Collections page seems like is going to be confusing and mysterious to users, and perhaps we should not expose something that is mostly handled internally. (Having it on the detail pages for individual collections is fine.)

Peter Amstutz wrote:

Reviewing 4fa5a3d

1. The radio button takes up a lot of space, and is somewhat ambiguous as to which value is actually selected. I would prefer that it only show the current value, and the user clicks on it to get a pop up menu to choose the desired value seems. This would use less space on the page and be less visually ambiguous.

Radio button is better in that it's right in front of you, and one click instead of click-move-click.

Changed to a single button toggle in 4e3ac7f -- takes up less space, shows only the current state, and requires only one click.

1. The default seems to be that everything is "cache", unless explicitly marked persistent. This seems dangerous. Shouldn't the default be that everything is persistent, except for stuff that the system knows can be regenerated or is not very interesting?

Certainly, there are some things that should default to persistent, but don't yet -- like arv-put, and job logs. (This feature is probably the easiest way to expose such gaps.)

1. If someone else has something marked "persistent", I still see it as "cache". This is even true for admin users.

Right. Showing who else has marked item X as persistent will be a good admin feature but this is just the user feature. The flag means "I want to keep this" -- not "someone wants to keep this".

1. In general surfacing this feature prominently on the Collections page seems like is going to be confusing and mysterious to users, and perhaps we should not expose something that is mostly handled internally. (Having it on the detail pages for individual collections is fine.)

Clicking each collection individually to see whether it's persistent sounds painful.

Perhaps this needs a different kind of UI so its purpose is more obvious.

E.g., by default you only see "persistent" things, and you have to click something to show cache-only stuff too?