www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Subject Re: Brooklyn not in http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html
Date Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:00:54 GMT
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <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.
Presumably if we added an LDAP group for the podling we'd also need to
add a PPMC group for the podling as well.

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?

--David

Mime
View raw message