www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Santiago Gala <santiago.g...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: [dSCM] Use case: infra down for maintenance
Date Thu, 01 May 2008 18:53:56 GMT
El jue, 01-05-2008 a las 13:47 -0400, Noel J. Bergman escribi├│:
> Santiago Gala wrote:
> > The recent days of hardware problems
> is not a justification for dSCM. 

´╗┐Has anybody said it was except you? NO. Frankly, I'm beginning to get
tired of having naysayers around. No need to be defensive.

>  There have been how many outages since
> switching to SVN?  How many total between CVS and SVN over 8 years?

Scaling up goes very well until it hits the ceiling, as people trying to
compete with google knows well.

> And, as you note, this could be addressed "by having a copy of the
> repository with the whole history
> server temporarily from a different place (say p.a.o or a hosting place)",
> which is part of the plan.

Cool, I was not trying at all to critizice the plan or the execution. As
you might have noticed (I didn't cc: committers@ to avoid spamming) I
thanked the effort of the infra team in this crisis.

> We do not want "peer to peer between developers" -- that is a violation of
> our development methodology, not a tool limitation.

Please, define $We. I'm a member of the ASF, active in a few PMCs, and
have been an officer for some yers, and I don't feel included in such
$We. And stating that it is a violation is stating that the practice of
attaching patches or having "vendor" repositories that are synced via
patches is a "violation of our development methodology".

I clearly would like to see where is "our development methodology"
documented with such precision.


> 	--- Noel
Santiago Gala

View raw message