www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: Brooklyn not in http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html
Date Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:54:18 GMT

> 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>>
>>> 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.

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.


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