On 12/17/2014 03:52 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:59:56 +0100 > Martin Kosek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/15/2014 11:01 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: >>> >>> Hello fellow developers, I added this new design: >>> http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Domain_Levels >>> >>> It is a prerequisite for both the Replica Promotion design: >>> http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Replica_Promotion >>> and the Topology plugins design: >>> http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Manage_replication_topology >>> (Ludwig will change this to include the changes we have discussed >>> in a previous phone call, and which involve mostly Domain >>> Level/Domain Upgrades/migrations issues) >>> >>> As usual feel free to add as needed or comments and ask questions. >>> >>> Simo. >>> >> >> Thanks! For starters, please follow >> >> http://www.freeipa.org/page/Feature_template >> >> next time :-) Don't worry, I updated current proposal to follow it. > > Ah you mean you broke and moved down one notch all the headings that I > changed one level up because the default ones are ugly ? :-)
No? :-) In meadiawiki, the highest headings you are supposed to use is "==" as "=" generates <h1> header and there should be just one <h1> on the page - and that is the page name. > Why do you start at == level instead of = ? See the note in http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting#Level_2 This is the reason why I changed levels in the Feature template - to drive the good mediawiki practices. > Starting at == makes === almost disappear within the text and sections > do not stand up anymore ... Then the problem is not in levels, but in the CSS we use - this is something we can fix. >> On top of what was already said, I have couple comments: >> >> >> 1) Relation between domain levels and FreeIPA versions >> >> It is now proposed as "numbers", how do we define the relation? Did >> you want to create new domain level on needed basis? > > It is totally on a need to change basis. > >> So we would have mapping like >> >> Domain level 0 --> FreeIPA 4.1 or older >> Domain level 1 --> FreeIPA 4.2 --> replica promotion, topology plugin >> user life cycle >> Domain level 2 --> FreeIPA 4.3 - FreeIPA 4.4 --> thin API client >> Domain level 3 --> FreeIPA 5.0 --> IPA-IPA trusts > > NO. > We change Domain Level only when there is a well defined *need*. > > If we change something that absolutely requires all of the servers to > have it/update it then we have a candidate reason for a level change. > Otherwise not. > >> ? Would it be more transparent to simply use versions as AD does [1] >> and always define which features require it? I.e.: >> >> Domain level "4.2" >> Domain level "4.3" --> thin API client >> Domain level "4.4" --> no changes >> Domain level "5.0" --> IPA-IPA trusts > > Certainly we'll need to document what Domain level a feature needs to > be activated, it will be necessary because said feature will have to > deactivate itself both in the CLI and UI if the domain level is not > high enough, and appropriate error messages need to be returned. I agree both on this comment and comment above. So you would like to push for numeric levels which we would then map in documentation with FreeIPA versions, right? > >> 2) Backporting features >> Long standing problem with API version was if for example RHEL/CentOS >> 6.6 does not rebase, but only backports selected patches/features >> from higher versions. Should it bump the API/supported Domain Level? > > If you create a frankenstein you need to make sure you backport all the > features necessary to interoperate at a specific domain level, or you > do not get to claim support for that level. > >> Or should it only bump Domain Level if and only if it backports *all* >> features for the respective domain level? > > Exactly, you have to be consistent. > >> 3) Storing server and global domain level in LDAP >> I added [2]. > > Thanks, although I think we'll need to store the domain level in it's > own object. The reason is that plugins may end up listening in to see > if it change and we do not want to have all of them parse every change > that goes into cn=ipaConfig all the time. > > So I will change the container name. Ok, makes sense. > > Simo. > >> >> [1] >> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/understanding-active-directory-functional-levels(v=ws.10).aspx >> [2] http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Domain_Levels#Storing_Domain_levels > > > _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
