| hach-que | |
| Oct 17 2013, 8:41 PM |
| F1117016: images.jpg | |
| Feb 17 2016, 9:08 PM |
| F1115522: 000000-0.png | |
| Feb 17 2016, 3:29 AM |
Follow up / feedback from T603.
With regards to custom policies, "LDAP group" would be a really nice one to have; it would certainly help at our workplace. Our scenario is to prevent non-developers from viewing the source code repository in Diffusion.
| Status | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | None | T10621 Create projects from external thing (extension to T3980) | ||
| Open | epriestley | T3980 Support "Bind to External Thing" to define project membership | ||
| Open | None | T5953 Build a modular user account batch importer |
This is not blocked, but large and not adjacent to other prioritized work. I've included it in "Projects v3" (T9378).
Is the outcome of this task likely to be select a source for a given project where source might be manual, or ldap, or something custom?
Would it be possible for the source to not only serve as an adapter but also create/remove projects on-demand?
Is the outcome of this task likely to be select a source for a given project where source might be manual, or ldap, or something custom?
Yes.
Would it be possible for the source to not only serve as an adapter but also create/remove projects on-demand?
I don't currently plan to support that; I don't think we've seen any use cases for it. You could do it yourself with project.edit and a little glue.
I think this was building up toward T10939, and the actual solutions we're looking at there probably don't involve this.
@epriestley can you explain how this was building up toward T10939? That one deals with automatically adding reviewers while this enables project membership (and hence policies) to be based on a predefined source of truth at most companies (LDAP).
This was moved into the prioritization queue by a particular customer that was interested in defining Owners via Projects via external sync.
My understanding is that LDAP sources were not their primary interest -- rather, a custom OWNERS-defined source was. T10939 describes better ways forward for that customer, so this task no longer has external prioritization driving it. Consequently, I've removed the Prioritized tag.
Most users interested in this task want LDAP sync, and that's the primary use case this task imagines, but this task was just a means to an end for the customer in question.
@epriestley thanks for the extra context. Makes sense now haha. Sad to see this get deprioritized though.