-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 14:56 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> The SSSD is listed as not having 100% completion but we noted that we >> fully expect to be feature-complete and testable by the Beta Freeze on >> March 10th. Is this insufficient? > > You were supposed to be in a testable state by the Feature freeze, not > beta freeze. > > Please refer to the following excerpt from the FESCo meeting on January 23rd, 2009. I draw your attention to the the portion of the conversation that specifically stated that the SSSD Feature was accepted contingent on its testability by the *beta date*: (12:36:57 PM) notting: sgallagh: so, this is intended to replace the current combination of nss_ldap, pam_krb5, pam_ccreds? (12:37:00 PM) nirik: yeah, same here. ;) (12:37:24 PM) jwb: and someone explain how the term "technology preview" got into a Fedora feature page... (12:37:39 PM) jwb: fedora itself is a technology preview... (12:37:46 PM) jds2001: hehe i was wondering the same thing. (12:37:49 PM) sgallagh: notting: short-term it will be complementary. medium-/long-term, yes. (12:38:10 PM) jds2001: so all this does is provide caching for offline auth? (12:38:21 PM) jds2001: or am I missing something totally? (12:38:37 PM) sgallagh: jds2001: It's also an integration point for central HBAC management (12:38:52 PM) notting: sgallagh: is the nss stuff client/server so that we're not sucking $random_lib_of_the_day into process-space? (12:39:10 PM) jwb: HBAC == (12:39:10 PM) jwb: ? (12:39:17 PM) jwb: oh (12:39:25 PM) sgallagh: notting: Yes, it's client-server. (12:39:27 PM) sharkcz: host based access control? (12:39:31 PM) sgallagh: jwb: Host-based access control (12:39:34 PM) dgilmore: i like the idea of SSSD i wish it was more complete (12:39:35 PM) jwb: thanks. (12:39:43 PM) notting: sgallagh: well, that takes all the entertainment out of nss_ldap bugs (12:39:45 PM) sgallagh: SSSD is being developed concurrently with FreeIPA v2 (12:39:52 PM) dgilmore: i think its going to need lots of testing (12:39:54 PM) jwb: sgallagh, what are your chances of getting this testable by Beta? (12:40:09 PM) sgallagh: jwb: I don't have the schedule handy, what's the beta date? (12:40:20 PM) jds2001: mid-march iirc (12:40:26 PM) jwb: 3-10 (12:40:29 PM) jwb: March 10 (12:40:39 PM) jwb: that's when Beta freeze is (12:40:45 PM) jwb: Feature freeze is a week before (12:40:47 PM) f13: actually (12:40:50 PM) f13: Feature freeze is March 3rd (12:40:55 PM) jwb: i said that (12:41:05 PM) f13: jwb: we were typing at the same time (: (12:41:22 PM) jwb: i win. w00t (12:41:55 PM) sharkcz: the idea is great and should close some gaps (12:42:38 PM) jwb: i think it sounds really cool. i'm just wondering if we should defer until we get a better feel for it being complete in time (12:42:47 PM) f13: well. (12:42:55 PM) f13: a feature can always be dropped if it's not ready in time (12:42:58 PM) sgallagh: Sorry, please hold (12:43:07 PM) notting: i'm +1 for the feature - we can drop it/not publicize it if it's not ready (12:43:10 PM) sgallagh: Conversing with my colleagues on that date (12:43:19 PM) f13: it just needs a good contengency plan (12:43:26 PM) nirik: yeah, +1 here, and if it's not ready we can try again for f12. (12:43:27 PM) sgallagh: f13: Contingency is: don't use it (12:43:38 PM) sharkcz: +1 as notting (12:43:42 PM) jds2001: +1 if it's that simple. (12:43:48 PM) sgallagh: It's not replacing anything in this release (12:43:51 PM) bpepple: +1 (12:43:55 PM) jds2001: drop it later if need be. (12:43:56 PM) f13: sgallagh: sure, I haven't looked at the scope yet to see if there would be any changes that would have to be rolled back. (12:44:04 PM) jwb: +1 (12:44:08 PM) f13: (I'm not actually in FESCo, just lurking) (12:44:24 PM) jds2001: f13: you're always welcome here :) (12:44:27 PM) sgallagh: f13: Rollback should be limited to removing from nssswitch.conf and pam config (12:44:42 PM) f13: sgallagh: see, there /is/ a contingency plan! (12:44:50 PM) sgallagh: I put that in the feature page, I thought (12:44:57 PM) f13: you may have (: (12:45:16 PM) sgallagh: Ah, not enough detail. Sorry (12:45:50 PM) jds2001: i see six +1's, so we've approved the SSSD feature, with the understanding that if it's not testable by beta, we'll drop it. Again, please note the last entry here. - -- Stephen Gallagher RHCE 804006346421761 Looking to carve out IT costs? www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmu9QQACgkQeiVVYja6o6Nr4QCfcw2kQybJC/DyPT2UEAPdhdhe BSMAn1oEGFbs8t7xXyGfN1AkvjECRzZH =9RX1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
