On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 4:38 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 6:29 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > >> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: >> > My reaction (being ignorant of the machinery behind phonebook and >> authorization) >> > is that adding to asf-authorization-template on podling creation would >> be ok (since it >> > is done only once per podling, by a mentor who presumably knows what >> they are doing) >> > but adding to asf-authorization-template each time a committer is >> appointed is probably >> > too error-prone. >> > >> > I might be naive but it seems that the fact that x is a committer to >> podling y should be >> > represented in one and only one place and the phonebook ought to drive >> from that. >> >> That's where I'm going with this as well. >> > > Unfortunately, I feel that this opinion isn't shared across the entire ASF > spectrum, see [1] for instance. Right now, you are correct, my > understanding is that we don't want to add podlings to LDAP. I'm not sure > the why behind it, and maybe its worth bringing up again.
I'm actually ambivalent about LDAP (although I don't see why not). I'm 100% with Julian on having a single DB for podling members. SVN auth file just doesn't feel right (especially for those podlings using Git you know). Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
