← Back to team overview

launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

Re: visibility vs. information_type for Products


On 09/18/2012 12:31 PM, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> I don't really understand how private teams work.  Is the idea that
> they have AccessPolicies, and then anyone with the right
> AccessPolicyGrant can see them?  If so, it sounds like it would be a
> good fit.

They do not have any form of access policy. But given that Swift and
product strategy created teams that they wanted to become public, I
think we do want to solve this case. OEM/HWE does not need it though.

>> InformationType represents the content the content of an artefact. 
>> Projects and teams are not documents/parts.
> Right, but Milestones and Series, which will derive their
> InformationType from Project are parts.


>> I agree that three of the enums do work with projects and teams,
>> but two imply the project or team exists to create maleware or
>> phishing scams. We will not except that. Projects and team might
>> use a base class or subclass that only contains the three sensible
>> enums.
> That's okay, it doesn't affect the database representation-- it's an
> int either way.
>> Otherwise the db and applications needs constraints to ensure
>> non-sense is not excepted.
> We need that anyway, e.g. for Specification.


Curtis Hovey

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Follow ups