On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:48 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 June 2017 at 16:59, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:59 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 27 June 2017 at 15:37, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:50 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 27 June 2017 at 13:56, <ru...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository. >>>>>> >>>>>> rubys pushed a commit to branch master >>>>>> in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/whimsy.git >>>>>> >>>>>> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push: >>>>>> new 6da1346 GUINEAPIGS += jmeter >>>>>> 6da1346 is described below >>>>>> >>>>>> commit 6da1346c3ddf19d15deed0ee469c3f2d78f12bfe >>>>>> Author: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> >>>>>> AuthorDate: Tue Jun 27 08:55:43 2017 -0400 >>>>>> >>>>>> GUINEAPIGS += jmeter >>>>>> --- >>>>>> lib/whimsy/asf/ldap.rb | 2 +- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/lib/whimsy/asf/ldap.rb b/lib/whimsy/asf/ldap.rb >>>>>> index e0a213a..5c86f78 100644 >>>>>> --- a/lib/whimsy/asf/ldap.rb >>>>>> +++ b/lib/whimsy/asf/ldap.rb >>>>>> @@ -970,7 +970,7 @@ module ASF >>>>>> end >>>>>> >>>>>> # temp list of projects that have moved over to new project LDAP >>>>>> schema >>>>>> - GUINEAPIGS = %w(incubator whimsy) >>>>>> + GUINEAPIGS = %w(incubator whimsy jmeter) >>>>> >>>>> This could potentially be derived from parsing asf-auth/pit-auth. >>>>> >>>>> I could look at that - unless it's not a good idea? >>>> >>>> It is a good idea, but I'm not certain it is worth it. After Axis, is >>>> there any reason to wait before doing the rest all at once, and >>>> eliminating this list entirely? >>> >>> Probably OK for PMCs, but I'm not sure that we have tested podlings fully. >>> >>> Especially as far as consumers of the public json files are concerned. >> >> I'm not following, particularly as (a) podlings aren't in the list of >> GUINEAPIGS, and (b) podlings never were in LDAP. But you don't need >> my permission to proceed - do as you feel best. > > Sorry, that was mainly a tangential comment. > > The issue is that podlings *are* in projects, but AFAIK there is no > way to distinguish the entries.
The most authoritative lists are in committee-info.txt and podlings.xml. LDAP augments that with roster information, but is missing key information such as: who is the chair and who are mentors. > At present, only TLPs are in ou=pmc and/or GUINEAPIGS, so it's easy to > create updated versions of > > public_ldap_committees.json > public_ldap_groups.json > > Other tools rely on these groupings currently (phonebook, projects, reporter). > > That's a lot of code to fix. > And I'm not sure the design of the updated public json files has yet > been determined - how are apps supposed to distinguish PPMCs, PMCs and > groups such as comdev? Ideally (in the long run) applications like phonebook would not rely on how data is structured internally. Committee-info.txt distinguishes between PMCs and non-PMCs. In the short run, mapping GUINEAPIGS to how the data used to look might be pragmatic. >>>>>> # List of owners for this committee, i.e. people who are members of >>>>>> the >>>>>> # committee and have update access. Data is obtained from LDAP. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> To stop receiving notification emails like this one, please contact >>>>>> ['"comm...@whimsical.apache.org" <comm...@whimsical.apache.org>']. >>>> >>>> - Sam Ruby >> >> - Sam Ruby - Sam Ruby
