labs-labs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Santiago Gala <>
Subject Re: Lab for distributed SCM?
Date Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:41:39 GMT
(I forgot to send this one yesterday,... too many fronts :) )

El vie, 22-02-2008 a las 12:31 -0800, Paul Querna escribió:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
> > I think Apache Labs would be a perfect place for such work. Are there
> > people who'd be interested in collaborating on such a lab? The lab
> > wouldn't really be producing much software, just documentation, helper
> > scripts, and other such stuff. Most importantly it would provide a
> > neutral ground for discussing the merits of different systems and
> > practices.
> -1, this isn't the purpose of Labs.
> Labs are a playground for SOURCE CODE, not a "neutral ground for 
> discussing" anything.  If you want to discuss stuff, take it to 
> community@ (or other lists meant for it).

I have said (I'd find easier if gmail was not so stupid as to not send
my own messages back in lists):

> I think the lab can be useful for discussion, but I don't think it is
> any sort of political body. So I think "neutral ground" is not the
> right
> word. In this sense I agree with Leo.

I hope Jukka agrees and we can find a "charter" that satisfies every
body. If we can't lift the -1 I would actually suggest going for a
homeless project, with distributed repos, feeds and blogs, much like
venus currently. But I'd prefer something less radical. :)

rehashing further messages:

> Bill Rowe said:
>> Paul Querna wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I do believe that documentation can be a valid project, but I also 
> > believe that documentation related to infrastructure already has a
> home, 
> > and Labs is not it.
> +1 to this conclusion; site-dev exists and is more appropriate.

infrastructure has stated repeatedly opposition on both technical and
social grounds, I'm not sure if putting it there would make sense.

I'd say if we would be going to do advocacy or discuss about the
concepts, community@ would make sense; if we would be planning for a
transition or some kind of support, site-dev@ would make sense. a lab is
less prone to confusion (ah, aren't we planning...? I saw is
site-dev...). But I think it only makes sense if the "discussion" part
is minimal and we have a clear charter, and, of course, not a "neutral
ground" in the sense that there is no fight, only research.

> Henri said:
> I would go as far as to be +1 to installing them on an Apache Labs
> zone and having people play with them, but they should not be the
> canonical location for the Apache source (ie: if they get deleted,
> nothing should be lost).

I don't think there is a big need, at least initially, to do installs,
as most tools around are conceived for client use, and most/all support
straight scp/sftp passive push (in non concurrency situations at least)
and pure http pull. I guess access to a snapshot of the public
subversion repository might be of interest, if there is enough disk
space it might make sense.


> Thanks,
> -Paul
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
Santiago Gala

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message