Thank you for your work on this, Sebb. I need to go through the threads and make sure all the ’t’s are dotted and all the ‘i’s crossed, but then I’ll start the work to decom that OU.
-Chris > On Mar 8, 2019, at 3:28 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > > Whimsy no longer references LDAP ou=pmc groups (*) > > I emailed the TAC chair (Gavin) about the TAC discrepancies, but I've > not heard what the final resolution is. > > S. > (*) except in the script that does basic checks of (asf|pit)-authorization > Those files still use ou=pmc for TAC and Security, so the script has > to allow for it. > Removal will not affect the script. > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 23:11, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Turned out to be not too hard to recreate public_ldap_committees.json >> from ou=projects with some help from committee-info.txt. >> The public_ldap_groups.json file can also be created with some data >> from ou=groups to supply the non-PMC groups. >> >> This should allow external projects to continue working mostly correctly. >> However the JSON files cannot be used to determine membership of >> ou=pmc or ou=groups. >> This has long been the case for the guinea pigs. >> >> The updated scripts should continue to work even when projects are >> deleted from ou=pmc and ou=groups. >> >> However the rest of the Whimsy code has yet to be updated; that is >> looking much more complicated. >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 15:48, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> It's looking to be quite complicated to maintain compatibility. >>> I think this is important because external projects may rely on the >>> generated JSON data files, and it may not be possible to fix all the >>> projects in time. >>> >>> The change will affect two of the JSON files: >>> public_ldap_groups.json >>> public_ldap_committees.json >>> >>> In both the above cases, the guineapig projects are added to the output. >>> This was done to maintain compatibility for external projects. >>> In theory all projects now become guineapigs. >>> However the ou=projects list includes lots of podlings as well. >>> >>> One way to maintain compatibility would be to make all the existing >>> projects in groups/committees into guineapigs. >>> A bit messy, but it might work. >>> >>> Longer term, external projects need to stop using ldap_committees, and >>> only use ldap_groups for whatever is left (e.g. member, committers) >>> This involves fixing phonebook and projects.a.o; there are probably others. >>> >>> The cutover date of Feb 9th might be somewhat optimistic. >>> >>> I think we need to find out if there are any other projects using the >>> 2 above-mentioned Whimsy JSON files. >>> >>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 13:15, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 11:36, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Note mixed private and public lists >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 09:37, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 03:54, Chris Lambertus <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sam, Whimsy Dev, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some time ago we migrated projects to use the ou=groups,ou=project >>>>>>> format with owner and member attributes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The time has come to delete the legacy CNs. >>>>>> >>>>>> It might make sense to fix Whimsy ASAP and see if that causes any grief. >>>>> >>>>> I have started looking at Whimsy. >>>>> >>>>> It needs a bit of care as the Groups/Project code is closely related, >>>>> and we need to keep the Groups for members and committers etc. >>>>> >>>>> There are some other entries only in ou=groups: >>>>> >>>>> apsite concom infra podlings >>>>> >>>>> I think infra and podlings are not used and could be deleted? >>>>> (podlings is empty anyway) >>>>> >>>>> apsite probably ought to be in a different OU -- if it is to be kept >>>>> It gives write access to /websites/production/www; maybe an existing >>>>> group (member?) would do >>>>> >>>>> Not sure about concom - maybe it should be ou=project? >>>> >>>> INFRA-17782 - create concom ou=project. >>>> >>>>> S.
