On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:03 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * David Fetter (david@fetter.org) wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > Without a major change in the way we do permissions, it will not
> > > work prospectively. We have no way ATM to store permissions for an
> > > object that does not currently exist.
> >
> > There have been previous discussions of prospective permissions
> > changes. Are we restarting them here?
>
> Having default permissions for new objects (something a couple of us are
> working towards) would help with this situation some. I don't think the
> ground Jeff's proposal would cover is entirely covered by just having
> default permissions though.
>
One case that it would not cover is creating new roles that you would
like to have access to existing objects. Defaults may be useful
independently, though, so I think the proposals are overlapping, but
generally different.
Regards,Jeff Davis
