[whups] Project developement, features, etc

[Alex L]

Sorry for the nasty quoting...


Quoting Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck@horde.org>:

> Quoting Alex L <admin@networkessence.net>:
> 
> > I believe there are a few developement questions that should be answered as
[snip]
> >  I see User Auth and Permissions as two different backends, but because
> the
> > permissions will/can depend on User Authentication, I think their details
> need
> > to be established so that they complement each other.
> 
> There is already a Horde Perms:: framework; it admittedly needs more work,
> but
> it's what we should use, IMO.
> 

Sounds great.

> > IMO, User authentication should be done through horde - with one addition.
[snip]
> > status. Agree? Questions, comments?
> 
> This sounds pretty good to me. I think it would be ideal if the second
> (public)
> auth source wasn't specific to Whups, but was just a second configured
> Horde
> auth source with the added requirement of having to be able to add users to
> it
> (sql, local file, etc). The rest sounds good; I think permissions on a
> per-module basis are reasonable and inside of that might be overkill, but we
> can
> make the perms system that fine grained easily.
> 

Hm. Are you saying creating a second Auth source (like another sql table) within
Horde for the public users? If so, I'd agree to that. Further, from earlier in
the list...

 Quoting Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck@horde.org>:
 > Quoting Alex L <admin@networkessence.net>:
 > 
 > > 2 more thoughts:
 > > - User authentication for ticket system *could* just be an email address
 > (or
 > > password) - maybe that could be configurable too?
 > > 
 > > - Public users submitting tickets be required to confirm ticket creation
 > via
 > > email (to filter out just a *little* bit of the lame stuff)
 > 
 > If Public users == whups specific users (as opposed to framework users), then
 > I
 > think this is a good idea, taken together.

I'm thinking we could have public users auth against a second Horde auth source
(sql table) combined with users being added via ticket creation & email as
quoted above.

> I think that moderation of comments in a bug tracker is overkill. Having
> admins
> able to edit them is enough, I think.

Agreed

[snip]
> bugzilla.
> > Agree? Disagree? Questions, comments?
> 
> I think bugzilla has a crowded, not necessarily so good interface. Turning
> pieces of the UI on and off based on permission/type of user sounds fine...
> did
> you really have more than that in mind?
> 

Agreed. I really didn't have anything particular in mind - just the concept of
having the public frontend, whether it look like bugzilla or not.

> > This subject hasn't been approached yet, but needs to be for a few
> reasons.
> > WHUPS will integrate with CVS, it will be able to cover multiple projects
> and
> > it will need to utilize user permissions because of this. Permissions on
> who
> > can modify what projects or even modify tickets for certain projects. The
> > permissions and project administration will need some type of interface.
> > This could all be done by populating SQL tables, but I think the data in
> those
> > tables should be able to be populated. Agree? Disagree? Questions,
> comments?
> 
> Yes, we need a general perms administration UI in horde/admin/, along with
> appropriate perm setting stuff inside the actual applications.
> 

Agreed


-Alex

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/