incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution?
Date Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:47:34 GMT
Not what I need atm drew.  I'm looking
for the names/addresses of people associated
with this PPMC who manage the network-
ie the local analog of Henk.  Peter is
one guy, are there any others?




>________________________________
> From: drew jensen <drewjensen.inbox@gmail.com>
>To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> 
>Cc: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org> 
>Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:43 PM
>Subject: Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution?
> 
>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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message