----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Callaghan" <dcallagh(a)redhat.com>
To: "beaker-devel" <beaker-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:35:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Beaker-devel] Some thoughts on system access policies
Excerpts from Nick Coghlan's message of 2013-07-31 11:39:46 +1000:
> Putting these thoughts in email form so Dan can either take them into
> account when rewriting the system pools proposals, or else suggest areas
> which seem like unneeded complexity. For example, with ad hoc groups,
> maybe we don't need system pools as a separate notion for tagging
> purposes (just create a group instead). They're all only half-formed
> notions, so definitely take them with a rather large grain of salt :)
>
> Firstly, I'm thinking that we should ensure the system <-> access policy
> relationship is always one-to-one. Anything else will be too confusing.
> If we decide to later implement a tagging system for referring to kinds
> of systems, that should be a separate thing independent of access policies.
Agreed. I still think that the original reasoning behind system pools
was valid, which is that people want to group systems into arbitrary
collections which are not (necessarily) correlated with user groups,
for:
* purely informational purposes ("these are all inside the wifi tent",
"these are out of warranty and should be discarded", ...)
Surely a good way to solve this is just a simple Tagging system, and not to confuse
labelling with access policies. It would also be a relatively simple addition.
In fact we already have a BeakerTag model that could be used for this I'm guessing.