On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 08:34 -0700, Nathan Kinder wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 07:57 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 07:18 -0700, Nathan Kinder wrote:
> >> On 10/19/2011 11:22 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 09:51 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
> >>>> On 10/19/2011 09:46 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 17:33 +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
> > ...
> >>>>>> 3) When user decides what to do with the conflicting object, he would 
> >>>>>> use the following commands:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ipa conflict-rename DN NEW_RDN
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This command would change the conflicting LDAP objects RDN to 
> >>>>>> foo2.example.com:
> >>>>>> $ ipa conflict-rename 
> >>>>>> 'nsuniqueid=af8a5d81-fa6011e0-bb339359-34a214df+fqdn=foo.example.com,cn=computers,cn=accounts,dc=idm,dc=lab,dc=bos,dc=redhat,dc=com'
> >>>>>>  foo2.example.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OR
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ipa conflict-del DN
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This command would delete conflicting LDAP objects altogether:
> >>>>>> ipa conflict-del 
> >>>>>> 'nsuniqueid=af8a5d81-fa6011e0-bb339359-34a214df+fqdn=foo.example.com,cn=computers,cn=accounts,dc=idm,dc=lab,dc=bos,dc=redhat,dc=com'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thoughts, comments?
> >>>>> Sounds good to me.
> >>>>> But I wonder if we can tell DS to create/move these conflicting objects
> >>>>> into a cn=conflicts subtree by means of configuration ?
> >>>> Not automatically, no.
> >>> So maybe a new DS plugin should do the trick? We would just have to
> >>> store original DN to some attribute if we want to enable user to just
> >>> rename the conflicting object to its original location.
> >> No, I think an RFE to change the existing replication plug-in to allow
> >> an alternate conflict area would be best.  Simo and I had discussed this
> >> possibility a long time back.  We would allow one to configure a suffix
> >> to put conflicts in to prevent them from being in the tree that clients 
> >> use.
> > I already implemented the conflict-find, conflict-show and
> > conflict-rename commands. But I really like your idea. Conflicts can
> > cause quite unpredictable effects for the user. Not every user can be
> > experienced enough to guess the replication conflicts cause that issues
> > and use the new conflict-* commands to fix it.
> >
> > If all conflicts are stored to a special suffix, the end user experience
> > will be much better. I can adapt new commands so that user can manage
> > the conflicts when he get to it without side effects other ipa commands.
> >
> > Nathan, do you think you will be able to implement this change for RHEL
> > 6.3.0? I can create a RFE bugzilla.
> Go ahead and create the RFE bug against 389.  We will discuss it in our 
> weekly DS bug triage on Monday to determine the timeline.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747701

Thanks,
Martin

> > Thanks,
> > Martin
> >
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>>>> It would certainly cause some entries to "disappear", but it would also
> >>>>> prevent some of the issues with have those entries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Simo.
> >>>>>
> >
> 


_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to