Mailing-List: contact infrastructure-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of matthieu.riou@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.46.29 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=CQ1FJ+ARvbShg7HrpRo8xahMjS20nT+389r/H2kinHHFkUYKVfkOH2SHOF91j76qeMqdvFMMj8NWp7s/n+ej8Wzk0sBmDQLLjrYqm0PYKrP7tJG56sBnYAyJpd2xNaKShBArs1oW/JD/0U4/LIXnRqpyKFKC7NtiemN08xBPC0w=
Message-ID: <fbdc6a970805021232u446bf96bvb9df713bb5c634f1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:45 -0700
From: "Matthieu Riou" <matthieu@offthelip.org>
Sender: matthieu.riou@gmail.com
To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
Subject: Re: Best Practices so far?
In-Reply-To: <5c902b9e0805021204l100c8038n6728cd4dc5d1dfbd@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_1626_19116753.1209756765673"
References: <481ACF4C.9040509@gmail.com>
	 <510143ac0805020507m302bcbfcje3d77bf9e6437722@mail.gmail.com>
	 <510143ac0805020739s1f0bc6e4t1fd45e3f563c633@mail.gmail.com>
	 <481B3378.30709@apache.org>
	 <fbdc6a970805020849p523b895dh7dec36211e6d5349@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5c902b9e0805020930l1bace3b3vbe2eaaa55ee4a08e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1209750754.5614.538.camel@marlow>
	 <5c902b9e0805021143x7c3083cg3be197453b9c994d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1209754696.5614.556.camel@marlow>
	 <5c902b9e0805021204l100c8038n6728cd4dc5d1dfbd@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_1626_19116753.1209756765673
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com>
wrote:

> 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
> 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.
>

So http://github.com have it all wrong?

Cheers,
Matthieu


>
> >  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
> administration practice.  If you continue to ignore this and whine and
> blather on, you simply won't get anywhere.  I won't apologize for
> asking that you spell out what it is that you want before considering
> anything.  -- justin
>

------=_Part_1626_19116753.1209756765673--