www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Brooklyn not in http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html
Date Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:55:50 GMT
On 22 January 2015 at 18:15, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:05 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 22 January 2015 at 17:54, Alan D. Cabrera <adc@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> It is not *adding* to the technical debt.
>>
>> The asf-auth file is the correct place for defining SVN groups that
>> are not in LDAP.
>> The podlings that do use SVN *already* have the committer groups here.
>>
>> It so happens that the ppmc groups won't have any SVN folders that need auth.
>> Likewise the podlings that use Git don't *need* committer entries.
>
> If you don’t see how that is not a poor practice, then there’s nothing else I can
say.  Let’s just drop it and agree to disagree.

I did not say that it was ideal. But it is no worse than the status quo.

>>> 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.
>>
>> I'm equally baffled why you seem unwilling to try this simple improvement.
>
> I apologize for my tone.

OK, fine.

But are you willing to consider something other than requiring
everything to be in LDAP?
At least as a short term solution?

==

Going back to the original subject of this thread, if you wish to see
Brooklyn in the committers-by-project list, that can be done right
now.
Adding PPMC listings will take a bit longer.

> Regards,
> Alan
>
>

Mime
View raw message