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: Best Practices so far?
Date Fri, 02 May 2008 19:51:29 GMT
El vie, 02-05-2008 a las 12:04 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz escribi├│:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Santiago Gala <santiago.gala@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  Not asking for a switch, only for an alternate service, much like zones
> >  have not removed p.a.o stuff.
> 
> As I have repeatedly said (and as you seem to consistently ignore), it
> is impractical for the core infrastructure team to support multiple
> SCM tools.  I'm not vehemently opposed to switching - but there needs

Nobody is asking for support for SCM tools. Just for conditional removal
of anti-protocol measures in our server, that basically makes it
non-functional for non-functional reasons. I don't even dare to think
that this is done on purpose to cast FUD on tools like git, but I have
not seen a single problem using git-svn with any svn repository except
ours.

> to be at least a modicum of thought put into it before sticking the
> infrastructure team with a new SCM.
> 
> >  Testing something like this in a zone scale would give us a better idea,
> >  and again no need to a "switch" plan, just to a "sustainability as a
> >  service" plan.
> 
> As I've repeatedly stated, a 'zone' does not offer you anything at
> all.  The fact that you're asking for a zone indicates that you don't
> understand how git is designed to work.  It is meant that you have a
> local copy of the entire repository.  Having a remote copy sitting on
> another server is to defeat the purpose of a dSCM.

I understand how git is designed to work. I just ask for a zone in case
that something like:
http://people.apache.org/~sgala/git/?p=shindig.git;a=summary is seen as
DoS-damaging or a security risk. I can serve myself just with the shell
in people.apache.org if this is not a problem for the "core"
infrastructure team". A /usr/local install of git would save a lot of
disk space if this starts to get more used, but this is about it. I have
it now, self-hosting in my account. But I have no sudo rights for p.a.o.

Re: "local copy", I have and use my local copy. The purpose of the URL
above and the associated repository up in p.a.o is:
a) having people look into nice, colored differences between patches and
master, say for JIRA issues
b) enabling people to pull from there, via http, what I push using ssh
from the *local* copy in my laptop. My local copy gets synced with this
one and the github one, but github has a bad UI that does not allow to
request diffs between arbritrary branches/revisions, while gitweb has
it. So b) is not even needed, I could use github or repo.or.cz for this.
c) an extra backup for my local copy in case my laptop gets stolen

I can document how to setup this for every committer wishing so, just
install git and a few other steps will do. but I'd like to know if this
is damaging or not, or requires support or not, before I do.

> 
> >  This is why I call your (collective your) "WE DO NOT DO THAT!!!" or your
> >  (again collective your) "I want to see a detailed switch plan!" as FUD.
> >  And I'm really getting tired of it. I was not expecting such dirty
> >  political moves around an issue that is so plainly technical, and I was
> >  not expecting that disagreement of those items made some people
> >  systematically cast doubts about our "loyalty" to the ASF principles.
> 
> First off, we will *not* be deploying any services that don't have a
> thought-out and documented plan.  This is simply good system

* Is a cgi under our p.a.o account "a new service deployed"? This is a
simpler question to answer, I hope.
* Is using ssh to push and http to pull from our p.a.o account ´╗┐"a new
service deployed"? This is almost all we need.
* The other thing we need is a way to clone, i.e., a way to have access
to subversion as their developed meant it, without having restrictions
to report. I think having it conditional to the IP of p.a.o could be a
way, or have it, as Matthieu suggested, for authenticated https requests
only.

> administration practice.  If you continue to ignore this and whine and
> blather on, you simply won't get anywhere.  I won't apologize for

I read the whining and blather on your side. We just happen to be
outside of the club holding the power and need to ask for you to restore
the functionality of the SCM server instead of returning arbitrary
errors. [1] No need for any other thing that removing the restrictions
on the server (conditionally if you want).

> asking that you spell out what it is that you want before considering
> anything.  -- justin

At least you did not say "switch" this time. :)

[1] I'm trying to stick to my strategy of just return 1 personal
derogatory word for each one you use, but I might have missed some or
put extra load because I'm not native speaker and some because I'm in a
hurry and getting tired of the lack of personal respect it implies, so I
hope this is enough "mirroring" for you today. Just in case, I think
"whining and blather" are personal insults, and I know how to escalate
those. I asked for public lists in a (failed) attempt to get you to use
more civil language, but it looks like we have different ideas of
netiquette, possibly a generational gap.

-- 
Santiago Gala
http://memojo.com/~sgala/blog/


Mime
View raw message