www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sander Striker" <s.stri...@striker.nl>
Subject Re: Best Practices so far?
Date Sun, 04 May 2008 14:25:31 GMT
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen <hps@intermeta.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 12:04 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>  > 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.
>
>  Any central place with <other SCM> mirror copies would allow
>
>  - defined poll intervals from the SVN server, which could minimize
>  traffic or push this traffic to off-times

That is correct.

>  - reduce or remove the need for svn-<something> bridges because
> there would be a central place to access Apache project source code
> in another format

It would *be* the svn-<something> bridge.

And would make it a new service [in a central place] that then needs to
be supported.  That's what always happens when it starts being used.

That said, I shudder at the thought when someone comes up with
<something-else>.

>  - allow interested parties to toy with these tools *without* interfering
>  with day-to-day SVN operations

The word "toy" is interesting.  If it is toying around, the impact should
not even be noticeable.

>  - allow infra to tighten the access rules on the SVN server for tools
>  and simultaneously relaxing the access rules for this central place to
>  allow efficient transfers off the SVN server

The only thing it needs relaxing for is this "toying" around.  Regular
clients don't need this.  The reason the access rules are there, is
to protect the SVN server against a) abusive tools, and b) protect
users against themselves that weren't thinking when they typed their
"svn checkout root/of/project"... (been there, done that).

>  - give a defined testbed to work *with* infra instead of rogue
>  experiments from all over the Internet.

There is nothing wrong with rogue experiments; actually rogue
experiments are great because they don't need any attention from
the people maintaining the systems.  That said, when the experiments
start to become so noticeable that is seen as abuse, access may
be restricted.  And from then on it becomes interesting; apparently
the tool is not well behaved towards our infrastructure, yet the one
conducting the experiment presumably wants to continue to toy around.

>  Think of this as another way of creating "daily snapshots" of our
> source tree. Maybe this would ease your mind.

I'm not sure, but I would think that there is little objection in pointing
svnsync* to the main repository, for say a project root**.  What is done
beyond that is not of any concern as it wouldn't be visible.

*) I'd hold off on that until the bugs are fixed that are preventing it to
  be used for the svn.eu.apache.org mirror.
**) The full root is probably stretching it, but YMMV.  If it doesn't cause
disproportional additional strain, why not.

>  The idea of a zone was born at the dSCM BoF in Amsterdam
> because a zone allows isolation and control of such an experimental
> infrastructure with *minimal* impact on the existing systems.

Except for the system that would host the zone.  Given we're at
capacity zone wise, AFAIK, it doesn't seem like a viable option.

> Maybe you or any other infra members should have bothered to be
> there.
> Dialog is good and a pillar of the ASF.

It is.  But to say that infra volunteers didn't bother to come is stretching
it I think.  Nothing prevented anyone to approach the people from Infra
that were present (unfortunate timing notwithstanding); say the day
after the BoF?

>  You still seem to believe that this discussion is "intended to kick
> SVN out". For most participants, it is not (AFAICS). This is "how
> can we augment the existing infrastructure in new ways, that are
> outside conventional thinking".

No.  To make sure there is no lack of understanding about it: the Infra
team is not willing to maintain more than one SCM.

>  And from what I have seen, a lot of people like Jukka have invested a
>  considerable amount of thinking before asking.

Which is appreciated.

> I don't think, anyone should belittle this.

I think that with the time invested in answering questions, I wouldn't
come close to considering it "belittling".

Cheers,

Sander

Mime
View raw message