www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [scm] Use case: code review/audit/study
Date Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:03:57 GMT
Hi,

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Erik Abele <erik@codefaktor.de> wrote:
> On 12.03.2008, at 09:40, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>  > What would be the instructions from Infrastructure to an Apache
>  > project that wants to add FishEye monitoring of their codebase? Is
>  > that OK? Should they use http://fisheye6.cenqua.com/? Should
>  > Infrastructure be notified? Are there special requirements for the
>  > timing of the initial import or some other ways to reduce the load on
>  > our Subversion server?
>
>  The HttpComponents PMC recently asked FishEye to add the HC codebase;
>  they are quite aware of the load they are able to put on a (our) svn
>  server and they have taken some counter-measures. They also wanted to
>  have an ACK of the infra team before starting the process and
>  suggested to do it on a weekend to further minimize the potential
>  impact. HTH...

Thanks for the details!

Could we streamline this process somehow in cooperation with the
Cenqua people? For example, could we decide some "safe hours" when it
would be OK for Cenqua to do the initial FishEye import of an Apache
project without an explicit OK or ACK from Infrastructure?

Alternatively, could we document some recommended notification
mechanism for people who want to do such bulk loads on our Subversion
server? For example, whenever you're planning to put noticeable load
(TBD) on svn.apache.org, you should notify infrastructure@apache.org
at least 72 hours in advance and proceed only if no objections are
raised.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Mime
View raw message