incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From drew jensen <drewjensen.in...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution?
Date Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:43:15 GMT
On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 11:11 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> FTR, I just got thru discussing these issues with
> Henk Penning, our Apache mirror guy.  While he's
> tried to reach out to Peter without success recently,
> he'd like to get in contact with whoever currently
> is managing the mirrorbrain mirrors because those
> mirror operators are in the dark about what our plans
> are, and maintaining good relations with mirror operators
> is essential for all concerned.  Please provide me
> with a list of mirror network managers for the old
> system so I can pass it along to Henk for followup.

Hi,

I have the list of addresses, culled from the website, which I used for
the initial mailing - in a spreadsheet, with notes as to which addresses
bounced and which responded. 

Will email that directly to you and CC Henk.

//drew

> 
> 
> Infra's position is currently that, for the upcoming
> release ONLY, continuing to use the legacy mirrorbrain
> system in conjunction with ASF mirrors and SF downloads
> is A-OK.  However it is painfully obvious that maintaining
> two different mirror networks causes trouble for everyone,
> so we will ask that this PPMC take steps to phase out
> the mirrorbrain network for all subsequent releases, leaving
> just ASF mirrors and SF downloads.  At that point we will
> be better positioned to avoid duplication of download
> resources and hopefully have incorporated many of the old
> mirrors into the ASF mirror network.
> 
> 
> Note: while you are required to use ASF mirrors, your use
> of SF download services is contingent on satisfactory performance
> and whatever criterion you consider essential- IOW its up to you
> whether you want to keep using it or not.  All SF has asked of
> us is timely notification so they can cancel whatever supporting
> arrangements they have made to not incur needless costs, something
> I consider eminently fair and reasonable.
> 
> 
> HTH
> 
> 
> 
> >________________________________
> > From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
> >To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 
> >Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:20 PM
> >Subject: Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution?
> > 
> >On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:58 PM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 14:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>> On 13 April 2012 14:00, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 05:38 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>> >> Bit late to pretend you're trying to be helpful
> >>> >> here with the bits about NIH you like tossing around.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> What questions are you asking again?  And what facts
> >>> >> are you pointing out?  Seems to me we had a working
> >>> >> agreementabout a month or so, settled entirely on-list,
> >>> >> but yesterday Peter pitches a fit and you decide NOW
> >>> >> is the time for complaints?  Gee if that's not kicking
> >>> >> sand in the faces of the people who worked out this
> >>> >> deal you'll have to excuse me while I figure out where
> >>> >> else all this unwanted sand could've come from.
> >>> >
> >>> > From my recollection the discussion earlier always started from the
> >>> > premise that Apache mirrors would take over, I thought because that
was
> >>> > the policy, only apache mirrors.
> >>>
> >>> Apache mirrors are ones sanctioned and coordinated by the ASF infra
> >>> team. They are not ones that the ASF manage. SF are working directly
> >>> with ASF Infra so that they become an official ASF mirror, the fact
> >>> that they are providing much more than a single mirror site changes
> >>> nothing.
> >>>
> >>> Any organisation whether they were part of the previous mirrorbrain
> >>> service or not is free to work with ASF Infra to become a part of the
> >>> ASF mirror system.
> >>>
> >>> > I asked when (how) it was determined that the Mirrorbrain service was
> >>> > broken and had to be replaced?
> >>>
> >>> Nobody said it was broken. What was said is that ASF Infra are not
> >>> willing or able to support two distinct mirror systems so either
> >>> people step up and move (and support) mirrorbrain at the ASF or the
> >>> ASF Infra team step up and make it work. ASF Infra is making it work,
> >>> using the resources being offered, including those from SF. Actions
> >>> speak louder than words.
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure ASF Infra will continue accept offers of long term support
> >>> and assistance from any third party willing and able.
> >>>
> >>> > I pointed out that it had never stopped serving up files, that TTBOMK
> >>> > the mirror operators had never notified this project that they would
no
> >>> > longer work with the project.
> >>>
> >>> True, and the ASF Infra team asked the PPMC to reach our to those
> >>> operators and ask them if they wanted to continue as part of the ASF
> >>> mirror system. Infra are not dumping the old network, they are
> >>> augmenting it with the existing ASF mirror and newcomers. Things look
> >>> different when you look from a different angle.
> >>>
> >> Hi Ross
> >>
> >> Alright, so it is just a matter of existing policy, which is to say that
> >> as part of matriculation into Apache the project relinquishes control of
> >> the distribution process from the project proper to the foundation,
> >> specifically the Infrastructure team, no exceptions.
> >>
> >> In the case of the existing mirrorbrain network then individual mirrors
> >> must conform to the existing requirements for becoming an official
> >> Apache mirror.
> >>
> >> In this case then the fact that the individual mirrorbrain server
> >> operators have not said they would stop supporting the project is of no
> >> consideration, rather what was needed, or lacking, is an active
> >> declaration of support via execution of the required steps needed to be
> >> recognized as official Apache mirrors, unless as is the case for some
> >> they already are such.
> >>
> >> Which is where I get a bit confused as to the reality of the situation
> >> on the ground, at this moment.
> >>
> >> When it is said that the mirrorbrain network will also be used for
> >> distribution what is meant is those servers in the current network which
> >> have become, or were already, Apache mirrors, but not the full
> >> contingent of servers? I believe that is accurate, but as I say I'm not
> >> really positive this is the case.
> >>
> >> So the facts on the ground are, that there has not been a large number
> >> of mirrorbrain operators executing these steps and therefore the project
> >> is faced with the necessity of augmenting the system by including the SF
> >> services.
> >>
> >> As to Peter then, it is in no way impugning the quality of all the hard
> >> work that he and others have contributed over the years, or the ability
> >> to continue to deliver the 'goods' (even patches), it is simply a
> >> consequence of the move to Apache and pre-existing foundation policy.
> >>
> >> It is just an unfortunate consequence that in this specific case one of
> >> the better executed, and well functioning, aspects of the community
> >> efforts from the old project falls afoul of the requirements in the
> >> projects in it's new home.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Drew, consider our recent OOo track record of community-supported
> >infrastructure:
> >
> >1) Extensions and Templates?  It gradually fell apart, over a period
> >of months, a horrible user experience, embarrassing,  with zero
> >volunteers from the community able or willing to fix it, before
> >SourgeForge volunteered to host it.  (Apache Infra also volunteered to
> >help, and certainly could have done it as well.  Point is, the AOO PMC
> >failed to solve this problem)
> >
> >2) phpBB Forums?   No admin, no maintenance.  It is one critical bug
> >away from falling over, or one XSS away from being shut down.
> >
> >3) Pootle?  No one in the project ever stepped forward to set this up.
> >We were fortunate that Apache Infra eventually did this and saved our
> >asses.
> >
> >So we're not exactly showing our strength when we talk about the
> >community's ability to maintain complex infrastructure.  Maybe these
> >all worked before. Maybe there was some Sun/Oracle staff helping?  I
> >don't know.
> >
> >In any case, I don't think, given this recent track record, it is very
> >wise to put all of our eggs in one basket and rely entirely on
> >MirrorBrain for our downloads. Some diversity and redundancy is a good
> >thing, both for peak demand, as well as insurance against the same
> >things happening to our downloads as happened to Extensions, Templates
> >and forums.
> >
> >-Rob
> >
> >> //drew
> >>
> >
> >
> >



Mime
View raw message