Mailing-List: contact infrastructure-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
Received-SPF: softfail (athena.apache.org: transitioning domain of
 list@toolazydogs.com does not designate 209.85.220.44 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Subject: Re: Brooklyn not in
 http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html
From: "Alan D. Cabrera" <list@toolazydogs.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOGo0VZ+WEGtG=8DmfmqEGWO1wWjmHQxekG=6S3XRJwspU_s5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:15:51 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0796270C-2516-4944-AD90-96ED41500F7D@toolazydogs.com>
References: <4E0AE711-6F64-434C-86C9-A9811FC729D6@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAKprHVb9ar+rVHOb5=rG=6SOoceDkJHJ11S+abA=CH9T9OxtVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <45FDAEE3-8701-4BA3-B3C3-57A7A7DDE6E1@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAKprHVbre4Eco6fqgbFB5Zp5if2o+5repSBzEdyetz-9XOQL8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <933D3493-8B77-44F3-A76F-C7C80328DFAB@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAKprHVb7kk8AhxTJ9NjEr7MRT8STcnWUoOwWuBDQmSvqwTRfsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <F520B75B-9663-452E-A344-09CE54270434@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAOGo0VYmKmHwEqVv=J4J5ba+EveF9+mqOLho2qi37awG95U6+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK2iWdTSB0KiC4VZ=BtACNUU=kWMDDXRn-dw4i3UZ-w9m9QE6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOGo0VbO0xYyHa5XvAURn+K1ptXFL-zyiHwAdn0iYhXDCnAVpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK2iWdQ0JWEp7HCg2Hn+pvgwobidwrD3+VBYH0nhhkVjrwzFGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOGo0VbFqvJUXMwkOTLoBt0t==6QoM9mfM0A0-FQYgcARUjMJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAS6=7jWf6OsmEZJvuRKDvOp6EHxmyx96mYLTvAqHPnN7bN=Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <07AECD11-CA8F-42AB-8D3D-70B0D6764720@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAK2iWdTzvsobM8ZKtKNo6ynqL9Ucdba15U-ns3Pm8BMkWZLwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <54BF775B.4040305@apache.org>
 <EDC225EA-9576-43F2-B0C1-52AD54D16C6E@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAOGo0VbTia608Ete+ppBpB6ppm6L_VuSf2UfNefgyQPU_p-obQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK2iWdQLeBTzNfcPNPQL0UOeU+m5980rq=z_CGa3mtj6_rCiQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOGo0VaK2qk4g77TxZXp5CeVFF0p=38feBRmar-+eJ72MH5NYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <AF2293C7-0D20-4E6C-95C6-91D7FC084CCC@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAK2iWdRuNzVuYxn9GAaA0hXTsnF5K5SbuSXysJOmVCT+vzDEcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <89AE5C12-B40D-4CF3-9084-4E2CD170111F@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAOGo0VaokcFwiUNfWy=3rDCbnsttsvK6kcGauFtr1pk-KzTh=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B9FC44C-EAE8-4C7B-BB3E-9DE8FC2A01DD@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAOGo0Vav6w1Wh+9iPOMzm08A-jUoAZ2SNA0ZHY1mncexjRWW6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA7FAFDA-5CDD-4902-971E-1D7B8E455962@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAK2iWdQ7hxH4kjxqukFD1yHTrdPAYJRKGe+J0bJkPDfEm1zRKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <AEB8C57F-3E73-4780-AC05-BD5B6925BB69@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAOGo0VZ+WEGtG=8DmfmqEGWO1wWjmHQxekG=6S3XRJwspU_s5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org


> On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:05 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On 22 January 2015 at 17:54, Alan D. Cabrera <adc@toolazydogs.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Jan 22, 2015, at 9:36 AM, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> On 22 January 2015 at 18:04, Alan D. Cabrera <adc@toolazydogs.com =
<mailto:adc@toolazydogs.com>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>> On Jan 22, 2015, at 8:14 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On 22 January 2015 at 15:52, Alan D. Cabrera <adc@toolazydogs.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On Jan 22, 2015, at 7:34 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> AIUI PPMCs have no legal status within the ASF.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> I am espousing for the creation of a new OU, i.e. Podlings.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> It would still require changes to LDAP and Infra processes.
>>>>=20
>>>> 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=E2=80=99s to be expected.  The change is not burdensome.
>>>>=20
>>>>>>> However if my suggestion of adding -ppmc entries to asf-auth is
>>>>>>> acceptable to Infra, then this can be implemented very quickly.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> What is this asf-auth file? Is it the subversion authorization =
file?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> As noted else-thread that is how Corinthia committers are =
documented.
>>>>=20
>>>> Pointing to a prior use of a bad practice is not itself a =
justification of
>>>> the bad practice.
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> It is a lot more than just collecting the data.
>>>=20
>>> 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
>>=20
>>=20
>> If you want to put PPMC and committer information in a Subversion =
authorization file, I can=E2=80=99t stop you.  What worries me, other =
than it is a bad practice, is that we=E2=80=99re simply adding more =
technical debt that needs to be undone; you guys are already using it as =
an excuse to not move to LDAP.
>=20
> It is not *adding* to the technical debt.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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=E2=80=99t see how that is not a poor practice, then there=E2=80=
=99s nothing else I can say.  Let=E2=80=99s just drop it and agree to =
disagree.

>> But please, I am totally baffled by the pushback on putting this =
information in LDAP.  This is not rocket science and there=E2=80=99s not =
a lot of refactoring that needs to be done to get us in a good place.
>=20
> I'm equally baffled why you seem unwilling to try this simple =
improvement.

I apologize for my tone.


Regards,
Alan