Mailing-List: contact infrastructure-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of santiago.gala@gmail.com
 designates 72.14.220.152 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=W3OTI+jQ6cP1M6sekPaS7O9YFLAGupeoErVIkQlJ02fyFqNoPIu7uwMqR04VQoENKUPdhe0y/rv0iq7J+HwZ0aEWyBGtw8SRNqkSSy6H0T09ubjrF2PEEwxRx1fsQMN70/KWevwwwrJjYzYWIN8fRkyVoBPDfiklTtK8OTy76W8=
Subject: RE: [dSCM] Use case: infra down for maintenance
From: Santiago Gala <santiago.gala@gmail.com>
To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPEELAEDAD.noel@devtech.com>
References: <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPEELAEDAD.noel@devtech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 20:53:56 +0200
Message-Id: <1209668036.5614.299.camel@marlow>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

El jue, 01-05-2008 a las 13:47 -0400, Noel J. Bergman escribió:
> 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.

Regards
Santiago


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