launchpad-dev team mailing list archive
-
launchpad-dev team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #09615
Re: visibility vs. information_type for Products
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12-09-18 12:36 PM, Curtis Hovey wrote:
> 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.
Okay, I was confused by the accesspolicy.person column, but on IRC you
explained that's unused.
I think an AccessArtifactGrant might be the right approach. If we
don't use access policies, then the PRIVATE/EMBARGOED distinction
affects display, but does not affect who can see the team. (PUBLIC
means "all", PRIVATE/EMBARGOED means "only grantees".)
Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlBYqwEACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI3J6gCfZjQOKV3kbrE/+0GwjLtZ5+Di
qSUAn2j6982jWSwKFd+SNBZUoQYRYIUP
=z/mN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
References