On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 10:13 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> This, I believe, has already been covered, but I'm concerned with the
> (over)use of active/inactive in this discussion.
> I think use of "inactive" and "active" to describe users might be
> confusing since there is already an account enable/disable command.
> This
> on top of unlock, are there now 3 possible boolean states a user can
> be
> in? locked/unlocked, enabled/disabled, active/inactive, plus
> deleted/active and staged/active?
Agree, we should only have "ipa user-unstage <username>" and not call
this operations with words like active/inactive.

User's in the staging area are not inactive, they are *not* users yet in
the first place.


Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to