On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 09:47:39PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > We quite regularly have upstreams getting access for weird architecture > failures. There's no particular reason for those people to have salsa > accounts. I understand those are temporary accounts. Do those cases need an arbitrary name from the LDAP namespace? Several places I worked with use a pool of time-limited accounts from a guestNNN namespace, for example: that could address your use case without overlapping with anything else. > It does to me, since suddenly we have to care about what's on salsa, > something we've never had to care about before. As I said in [🔎] 20200409181701.3qqsn5sqq3xbu2ia@enricozini.org, no, you don't need to care about anything: you keep doing what you want, and we deal with it. So far, I only received requests to keep the status quo as it is indefinitely, and very little in terms of counterprosals actionable now, besides theoretical new software solutions to be explored, that would address the problems I am having. I want to be very clear on this: I have no intention of keeping the status quo as it is now: either it becomes something that I can manage, or I'll stop managing it. Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature