www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: Brooklyn not in http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html
Date Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:02:11 GMT

> On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:55 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 22 January 2015 at 18:15, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com <mailto:list@toolazydogs.com>>
wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:05 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 22 January 2015 at 17:54, Alan D. Cabrera <adc@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 22, 2015, at 9:36 AM, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 22 January 2015 at 18:04, Alan D. Cabrera <adc@toolazydogs.com
<mailto:adc@toolazydogs.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jan 22, 2015, at 8:14 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 22 January 2015 at 15:52, Alan D. Cabrera <adc@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 22, 2015, at 7:34 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> AIUI PPMCs have no legal status within the ASF.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If LDAP committee entries are created for them, then
the tooling needs
>>>>>>>>> to be adjusted to cater for this.
>>>>>>>>> There is other data that really needs to go into LDAP
as well.
>>>>>>>>> AIUI changing LDAP structure is not trivial so ideally
all the changes
>>>>>>>>> need to be done at once.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am espousing for the creation of a new OU, i.e. Podlings.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It would still require changes to LDAP and Infra processes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Changes in LDAP, of course, but these are new orthogonal changes.
 Changes
>>>>>> to Infra processes, yes, but we are cleaning technical debt here
and so
>>>>>> that’s to be expected.  The change is not burdensome.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> However if my suggestion of adding -ppmc entries to asf-auth
is
>>>>>>>>> acceptable to Infra, then this can be implemented very
quickly.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What is this asf-auth file? Is it the subversion authorization
file?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As noted else-thread that is how Corinthia committers are documented.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Pointing to a prior use of a bad practice is not itself a justification
of
>>>>>> the bad practice.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why not make a step by step approach, looking at the mail is is obvious
>>>>> that a LDAP change right now misses:
>>>>> - backing from infra
>>>>> - backing from the IPMC chair (who would need at least for a while to
do
>>>>> the job)
>>>>> - a discussion if a REST API is so secure that Infra will allow it (to
be
>>>>> honest I would not)
>>>>> - the tools that use the REST API.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is a lot more than just collecting the data.
>>>>> 
>>>>> as Sebb suggested we can expand the svn-auth file, it is not perfect
but it
>>>>> collects the information PPMC and committer in one place. Once that is
done
>>>>> we could have a longer discussion on
>>>>> - which information should in general be appended to LDAP (and do we
want
>>>>> LDAP to be our central repository for committer data)
>>>>> - if yes, can we allow a REST API that updates LDAP, and how to make
it
>>>>> secure
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> If you want to put PPMC and committer information in a Subversion authorization
file, I can’t stop you.  What worries me, other than it is a bad practice, is that we’re
simply adding more technical debt that needs to be undone; you guys are already using it as
an excuse to not move to LDAP.
>>> 
>>> It is not *adding* to the technical debt.
>>> 
>>> The asf-auth file is the correct place for defining SVN groups that
>>> are not in LDAP.
>>> The podlings that do use SVN *already* have the committer groups here.
>>> 
>>> It so happens that the ppmc groups won't have any SVN folders that need auth.
>>> Likewise the podlings that use Git don't *need* committer entries.
>> 
>> If you don’t see how that is not a poor practice, then there’s nothing else I
can say.  Let’s just drop it and agree to disagree.
> 
> I did not say that it was ideal. But it is no worse than the status quo.
> 
>>>> But please, I am totally baffled by the pushback on putting this information
in LDAP.  This is not rocket science and there’s not a lot of refactoring that needs to
be done to get us in a good place.
>>> 
>>> I'm equally baffled why you seem unwilling to try this simple improvement.
>> 
>> I apologize for my tone.
> 
> OK, fine.
> 
> But are you willing to consider something other than requiring
> everything to be in LDAP?
> At least as a short term solution?

I just want the infra rubber stamp that this is the ultimate way to go and that I have the
go-ahead to start work on this.  What you do tactically is up to you so long as it doesn’t
block me; this won’t block me.

> ==
> 
> Going back to the original subject of this thread, if you wish to see
> Brooklyn in the committers-by-project list, that can be done right
> now.
> Adding PPMC listings will take a bit longer.

Yes, it will work.

Since we don’t have PPMC listings let’s wait until the info is in LDAP.  Then we can update
the generation of those pages to pull their data from LDAP, more likely whimsy who in turn
will consult LDAP.


Regards,
Alan


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message