www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: Brooklyn not in http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html
Date Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:12:37 GMT

> 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.

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

> Presumably if we added an LDAP group for the podling we'd also need to
> add a PPMC group for the podling as well.

Yes, and that would be a good thing.

> 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.

Frankly, I’m surprised that I’m getting pushback in putting podling group information
in LDAP.


Regards,
Alan




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