Yes, agree in a single source which should not be svn authorisation, even
as I last added commonsrdf to the people.apache.org directory there were
two similar authorisation files, and it was not clear which one to add to,
in fact even infrachat raised the same questions in this thread that we
need a better solution.
The fact that podlings are listed (and searched for) separately from
projects is also very confusing for any outsiders not fully familiar with
the incubation process.
Could people remind us about the reason why LDAP is not good for podlings?
Is it to do with write permissions to modify the LDAP group? Grant IPMC
members full write access, as they would need to formally approve (even if
it is by passive vote) any new podling committers anyway.
Getting the podling to declare formerly the committers and PPMC in the same
way as top-level projects sounds to me just to be a good thing
("pretending" they are a TLP); for several of the current podlings there
are multiple sources of membership listings, not always in sync or easy to
find.
I don't see why LDAP groups is worse than hunting around doing pull
requests deep inside INFRA's production system management rules.. even
trying to change the documentation for this struggles with continual
development and deprecation within INFRAs infrastructure (which I think
they should be able to do).
Another, more hackish solution would be to drive the phone book for
podlings from podlings.xml or projects/${podling.xml} - I would be a bit
negative to that as it keeps podlings "special", it will break in 18 months
time, and also the podling.xml seems mainly presentational with a HTML-like
<td>. (Why is it not just HTML ;)
On 15 May 2016 12:48 a.m., "Roman Shaposhnik" <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
