On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 03:00:31PM +0000, Luca Filipozzi wrote: > > Question: is there something in the proposed Salsa plan that somehow > > blocks experimenting with, introducing, or migrating to Keycloak in the > > future? > > The further we go down one path, the harder, in my opinion, to change > later. I think we're not really going "down one path": we're trying to dig ourselves "out of one pit". I'll have to repeat the question: is there something specific in the proposed Salsa plan, that somehow blocks experimenting with, introducing, or migrating to Keycloak or some other solution in the future? From what I can see so far, we're starting a migration to OIDC, removing one of 3 user databases, adopting more standards, and doing some general cleanup along the way, which makes me think Salsa could be considered an iterative step towards a migration to anything else. If you're instead generally expressing a fear that once we migrate to Salsa, we'll be in a local optimum that is going to be considered good enough to be worth bothering migrating to anything else, then I would argue that the problem wouldn't be having moved to Salsa as an OIDC provider, and rather that the next step that is proposed wouldn't be bringing enough compelling advantages to the problem at hand. Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature