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 23:08:07 GMT
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.


> 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).

rgds
jan i



>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
>

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