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 Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:07:20 GMT
On 21 January 2015 at 00:57, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 January 2015 at 23:43, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > But committers added after the podling
> > entered incubator might, but need not be PPMC.
>
> That is news to me; I thought the idea was building community rather
> than acquiring developers  but I could be wrong.
>

Since when is PMC (or PPMC) == community ?

Of course the idea is to build community, but we have a clear definition of
roles for committer and PMC (PPMC).

To me a community is contributors+committers+PMC in short everyone who is
active in the project.

Btw, committers is not only developers but all kind of people interested in
a subset of the project (e.g. Documentation) whiich I am sure you agree to.

rgds
jan I.


>
> >
> > 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.
>
> It's only different if committers != PPMC.
> Since I assumed they were equal, when I wrote committers I could have
> written PPMC.
>
> > 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).
>
> So long as there is general consensus I don't think it matters whether
> there is a vote or not.
> But I would expect only active committers to become members of the
> initial PMC, because it is important that the PMC are fully engaged
> with the project going forward.
> For this reason mentors may not wish to join the initial PMC - their
> job is done (if not, the podling is not ready!)
>
> > 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