Rounding Out Activation Keys
Bryan Kearney
bkearney at redhat.com
Fri Jul 15 19:15:57 UTC 2011
On 07/15/2011 03:09 PM, Devan Goodwin wrote:
> Questions:
>
> - Should we change the straight activation key to pool relationship.
>> From what I heard the other day it's not just a relation to a pool,
> but will also require a quantity, which probably implies some kind of
> intermediary object.
One use case for keys is just to bypass authentication... so.. the
following are valid
FOO bypasses auth
BAR bypasses auth and Subscribes the consumer to 2 of product X.
BAZ bypasses auth and Subscribes the consumer to 2 of product X and 3 of
product Y.
>
> - Could an activation key ever reference a product rather than a specific pool?
I dont know what this would buy us. If you want that, use subscribe
--auto. Maybe in the future you pick the best match for "product X".
So.. maybe in the futue.r
>
> - Is there anything else our activation keys will need to do?
for pure candlepin, dont think so.
>
> - What restrictions should be placed on activation key text? I'm a fan
> of the alpha-numeric + "-" and "_" for things like this.
+1
>
> - Are we expecting these to be operational at the end of this sprint?
> Or just that you can pass them in during registration but nothing will
> happen.
I expect to see FOO from above operational. I dont think we put BAR or
BAZ into the sprint. I would love to see those work tho :)
-- bk
More information about the candlepin
mailing list