On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 12:53 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 05/27/2011 11:48 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:02 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>> On 05/26/2011 10:57 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> 3) Environment/pool family policies
>>> Based on the environment a user is launching an instance, a
>>> different set of images should be available to the user.
>> I would not state it this way, rather
>> Based on an environment, I may have a different set of permissions. In
>> addition there may be additional images I can see in that environment.
> Well ...
> The only time I see environment coming into this from a user's
> perspective is when they are launching a deployable - i.e. they are
> launching a deployable in an environment
> And the only permission that seems relevant when launching a deployable
> is whether a given image is available to that user for that environment
> So, I'd prefer the less generic version .... or multiple less generic
> statements that make it more obvious what policy is being enforced.
Here is the use-case, This item comes down to delectation.
I upload an image, I have permission to 'move' it into prod, and allow
anyone in prod to launch it, but not delete it.
Moving images between environments sounds like something the image cli
and katello could manage.
Again, conductor just needs to know if the image is allowed for a given