Hi ! :) On 2/12/13, Dave Brondsema <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > Regarding LDAP, I think that's an open question whether we want to integrate > it > with Apache LDAP or allow anyone to register and set their own usernames. >
FWIW We had a similar discussion [1]_ last month in [email protected] about relaxing access to the issue tracker [2]_ . The general opinion was in favor on using OpenID. In this message [1]_ I also mentioned my opinion consisting in that a really open access should consider OpenID ... plus a tiny suggestion about how to leverage LDAP backend for this purpose using gracie [3]_ . Otherwise maybe it'd be possible to have a combination of both (LDAP for Apache members + OpenID for everybody else) . AFAICT we can do such things in Bloodhound but I'm not very aware of how to make such setup work with Allura . Besides I'm not aware of the interactions between OpenID and ASF policies . [...] .. [1] Re: Access to issue tracker (Was: Re: Relaxing access control to the Bloodhound source) (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-bloodhound-dev/201301.mbox/%3ccagmzaumj60id0qkadnoj9x+5+6wyazkv1qaxabhyuimwzej...@mail.gmail.com%3e) .. [2] Apache™ Bloodhound - issue tracker (https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound) .. [3] gracie @ PyPI (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/gracie/) -- Regards, Olemis.
