www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <j...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Brooklyn not in http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html
Date Tue, 20 Jan 2015 23:43:29 GMT
On 21 January 2015 at 00:23, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 January 2015 at 23:08, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 20 January 2015 at 23:48, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 January 2015 at 21:12, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:00 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <
> list@toolazydogs.com
> >> <mailto:list@toolazydogs.com>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 12:04 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us>
wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <
> >> list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:56 AM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <
> >> list@toolazydogs.com <mailto:list@toolazydogs.com>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:31 AM, jan i <jani@apache.org>
wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On 20 January 2015 at 20:22, Alan D. Cabrera
<
> >> list@toolazydogs.com <mailto:list@toolazydogs.com>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:19 AM, jan i
<jani@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> On 20 January 2015 at 20:12, Alan D.
Cabrera <
> >> list@toolazydogs.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:08 AM,
sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 20 January 2015 at 18:12,
Alan D. Cabrera <
> >> adc@toolazydogs.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2015, at
10:08 AM, David Nalley <
> david@gnsa.us>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a reason it
needs to be added?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems like an odd
question and I would turn it around
> >> and ask, is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> there a reason why it shouldn’t?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IIRC that page is derived
from the authorization file for
> >> SVN -
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn doesn't use
svn, so no listing.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> It does not *need* an entry
in asf-auth, but one can be
> >> provided.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to fix the tooling…
:)  Where’s the code that
> generates
> >> those
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> pages?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The tooling is not broken.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is currently no readily
accessible data defining the
> >> members of
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the Brooklyn podling.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Once a podling graduates, it
will have an LDAP group.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Then what about all the other podlings
that are on this
> page?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Documentation for podlings says you
should update that file,
> so
> >> I did it
> >> >>>>>>>>>> for corinthia even though we use git,
and it worked nicely.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> What file are you speaking of?
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> this one
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/subversion/authorization/asf-authorization-template
> >> <
> >>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/subversion/authorization/asf-authorization-template
> >> >
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Search for "bookkeeper=breed"
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> You need to add brooklyn after that line. Commit
the file and
> the
> >> rest
> >> >>>>>>>> happens automatically within 24 hours (people.a.o
is updated
> with
> >> a cron
> >> >>>>>>>> job).
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Is there a corresponding authorization file for
git?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> No
> >> >>>>>> Git authorization is much more coarse.
> >> >>>>>> tl;dr - we parse the name of the repo before the first
delimiter
> and
> >> >>>>>> look for a PMC in LDAP by that name and see if the
committer is a
> >> >>>>>> member of that LDAP group.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> By PMC I think you mean project, correct?  But I’m not
sure if
> >> podlings are in LDAP.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> No.
> >> >>>> I meant PMC
> >> >>>> Podlings are not projects in the top level sense, and have
no entry
> >> in LDAP.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So for podlings it’s all incubator committers, as Jan said in
> another
> >> email?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Correct.
> >> >>
> >> >>> The podling committer membership and PPMC membership information
> seems
> >> to be spread around if at all.  Does it make sense to create LDAP groups
> >> for them to provide a canonical source?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> In my experience, podlings don't do a good job of keeping up with the
> >> >> data that needs to be stored in so many locations.
> >> >> (Their website, their status file, the svn auth file). Adding yet
> >> >> another place to keep up with things seems the wrong direction to
> >> >> head.
> >> >
> >> > I’m hearing a description of all the complicated things that occur
> >> because we don’t put podling membership information in LDAP.
> >>
> >> What complicated things?
> >>
> >> > We can simplify that, that’s a tooling issue.
> >> > there’s no requirement to have membership information in a website and
> >> if there is it should be auto generated from LDAP anyway
> >> > the status file should be auto generated from LDAP anyway
> >> > the svn auth file should be pulling info from LDAP and does do that
> for
> >> non-podlings
> >>
> >> Not every group in the SVN auth file is in LDAP
> >>
> >> >> Presumably if we added an LDAP group for the podling we'd also need
> to
> >> >> add a PPMC group for the podling as well.
> >>
> >> No, I don't think that would be required.
> >> Or a good thing, because PPMCs are not PMCs.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yes, and that would be a good thing.
> >>
> >> It would be more work for Infra and the podling.
> >> There is no distinction between PPMC and podling committers.
> >> This only occurs once the podling graduates.
> >>
> >> >> I am also not sure that it gives a lot of advantages, and I know it
> >> >> adds overhead, overhead that can currently only be dealt with by a
> PMC
> >> >> Chair. With that said, what problem are we actually trying to solve?
> >> >
> >> > The problem that there is no source for PPMC membership at all and
> that
> >> podling membership is implicitly managed in an SVN auth file.
> >>
> >> The source is the SVN auth file.
> >>
> > Actually not ! the SVN auth file contains all committers for a podling,
> but
> > not who is PPMC.
>
> I was under the impression that the PPMC consisted of all the
> committers for the podling.
>

Initial committers == initial PPMC. But committers added after the podling
entered incubator might, but need not be PPMC.

the same goes for mentors, initial mentors == PPMC and commiter. Those who
are added later should be voted in.

Some podlings have a rule committers == PPMC but not all.


>
> At graduation time, those committers who are no longer involved will
> generally not be included in the initial PMC.
>

I have understood this differently. Those PPMC members who are no longer
involved will not be included in the initial PMC.

I had the impression that PPMC members are asked if they want to be PMC as
part of the graduation process (no voting just asking).

rgds
jan i.


>
> >
> >> Frankly, I’m surprised that I’m getting pushback in putting podling
> group
> >> information in LDAP.
> >>
> >> It would be more work overall.
> >> The LDAP group would have to be created (and then deleted if the
> >> podling does not graduate).
> >>
> >> And the group would still have to be maintained by someone.
> >>
> >> It's no harder to update the SVN auth file than to update LDAP.
> >> Indeed I would say it is simpler. And it's obvious who is already in the
> >> group.
> >>
> > I agree on that, but that would currently only give committers not PPMC
> of
> > a podling.
> >
> > The only place PPMC is registred is in the podlings status file (xml).
>
> That assumes there is a difference between committers and PPMC for a
> podling.
> As I wrote above, that is not my understanding.
>
> > rgds
> > jan i
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Alan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>

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