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 12:45:35 GMT
On 22 January 2015 at 12:20, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21 January 2015 at 17:42, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Jan 21, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2015-01-21 09:47, jan i wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Can we all agree that we need to put this into LDAP?
>> >>>
>> >>> I agree with you  that LDAP is the right place for such information,
>> and I
>> >>> do not see so many podlings fail that it should be a major concern.
>> However
>> >>> I think a discussion on general@i.a.o is needed.
>> >>>
>> >>> If PPMC/committers maintenance of a podling is moved to LDAP, the
>> mentors
>> >>> and/or PPMC will no longer be able to maintain it them self. The
>> script to
>> >>> update LDAP is only available to officers (chairs) and infra, meaning
>> we
>> >>> move a task and the incubator chair needs to agree to that.
>> >>>
>> >>> If incubator agrees on this approach then I assume David (v.p. infra)
>> will
>> >>> be relatively easy to convince.
>> >>>
>> >>> rgds
>> >>> jan i
>> >> Podlings are experiments, not actual projects, in as much as a podling
>> is no more than a sub project much like mod_ftp or the Nth commons
>> sub-project. Are you suggesting we add LDAP groups for all sub projects? We
>> have LDAP (UNIX) groups for committers for the sake of maintaining a
>> working authorization/authenication scheme, which is a moot point for
>> incubator where we exercise universal commit bit.
>> >>
>> >> As I understand it, the sentiment seems to be "let's put it in LDAP
>> instead of tracking it in a file".
>> >>
>> >> Let's list some pros and cons for this LDAP idea as opposed to using
>> the auth file for tracking:
>> >>
>> >> Pros:
>> >> - it's in LDAP instead of a text file.
>> >> - it may (or may not) be easier to get a list of project members
>> >>
>> >> Cons:
>> >> - Our current setup would be invalidated
>> >> - We'd have to change our account and podling request processes
>> >> - We'd have to change the graduation process significantly
>> >> - The Incubator chair would have to manage all this or we would have to
>> rework how LDAP works
>> >> - We'd have to create a new OU for this, which would mean yet more work
>> on all auth schemes
>> >> - There would/could be disputes over what is canonical at graduation if
>> a resolution conflicts with LDAP
>> >> - We would have to import all the previously established podlings into
>> LDAP (this would be no small task)
>> >> - We would likely create precedence for all sub-projects to have their
>> own LDAP group (yet another OU?)
>> >> - Unless someone from the Infra PMC steps up to do this voluntarily, it
>> would have an added cost of $N to do.
>> >> - The auth file would have to have all its current podling auth entries
>> changed to LDAP.
>> >>
>> >> If the only reason for moving to LDAP is "I won't have to change a text
>> file", then I really fail to see the reason to do this.
>> >>
>> >> What is the actual gain here? It certainly won't make anything easier
>> for infra.
>> >> How does it in any way compare to the cost of doing such a move?
>> >
>> > I understand why you’re hesitant to take this on.  You manage volunteer
>> staff and have a limited budget for those who are paid.  From your point of
>> view what we have “works” and there are higher priority items that you are
>> responsible for getting done.
>> >
>> > With that said, I would point out that your long list of “cons” is
>> symptomatic of the problem caused by not putting podling committer and PPMC
>> information in LDAP.  The current mechanism of capturing podling group
>> information is disparate, brittle, and inconsistent.  I don’t think that
>> you’re claiming that the current setup is ideal; you just have to deal with
>> limited resources to get things done.
>> >
>> > What I am proposing is that I construct a plan to get us to a better
>> place.  I will create the conversion scripts, LDIF files, etc. and
>> coordinate the effort with the podlings.  All I need is the assistance of
>> someone w/ the privileges and the experience to review my proposed
>> changes.  I will do the overwhelming bulk of the work.
>> >
>> > I don’t think there’s anything to lose by this proposal.  If I don’t
>> follow up w/ what I propose then we are simply left with our current state
>> of affairs.  If I deliver, we’ll be in better shape overall and things will
>> be much more simple and consistent.
>> >
>> > wdyt?
>>
>> I think there may be a much simpler solution to this.
>>
>> The podling committers are already (or can be) added to the svn-auth file.
>> AIUI if  the podling group is not actually used (e.g. for SVN auth)
>> then it is just ignored.
>>
>> So it seems to me it would be simple to add podling-ppmc groups to the
>> file.
>> This would probably mean a minor tweak to the scripts that generate
>> the people.a.o website, and possibly also to whimsy, but the changes
>> would be relatively minor.
>>
>> Assuming there is no objection from infra to adding these entries,
>> then this would have the advantage of simplicity (and speed of
>> implementation).
>>
>> The podling could then easily manage its committer and PPMC lists as
>> they would be in the same place.
>> Much easier to see whether the lists are correct.
>
> +1 would be nice if the podling status pages could also use this
> information, so PPMC do not need to maintain multiple places.

Note that the existing podling status pages don't seem to have a
standard format for the PPMC members.
So updating them from other sources is likely to be tricky. Or indeed
extracting the information.

Maybe if that issue were fixed there would be no need to involve
changes to Infra processes or data.

> rgds
> jan i
>
>>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Alan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

Mime
View raw message