1 |
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 17:56 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: |
2 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100 |
4 |
> > Ben Skeggs <darktama@×××××××××.au> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> >>Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's |
8 |
> >>r/o access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out |
9 |
> >>that the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made it to |
10 |
> >>your local rsync mirror yet.. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Out of curiosity, what's the more important aspect of r/o cvs: |
14 |
> > - more up to date |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Not necessarily true. We would not have the anon cvs access from our |
17 |
> primary cvs server. It would be synced on a regular basis to a separate |
18 |
> box. The newer cvs (which isn't on lark yet) may give us capabilities to |
19 |
> have a more 'live' cvs anon system. But as of now, the best infra can |
20 |
> provide is 30 minute updates. I don't want to poll the cvs more than |
21 |
> that to keep down the load. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> > - easier selective updates |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Yup, that's definitely a plus. |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
And herein I think lies some confusion. Personally if I were an AT both |
29 |
would be important but more to the point the "more up to date" issue |
30 |
would be the most important. I think that there is a need for the ATs to |
31 |
be able to work in direct conjunction with a dev, an AT catches an |
32 |
error, a dev fixes it in CVS using a *well tested* patch, an AT does a |
33 |
`cvs up` and retests to try and catch *other* errors all within a matter |
34 |
of *single digit* minutes. This is a very powerful tool, rather then |
35 |
what they have to do now which is either wait for it to hit the rsync |
36 |
mirrors, a dedicated rsync mirror, a dedicated anoncvs box, or e-mail |
37 |
the ebuilds (and patches) back and forth. Note the two highly stressed |
38 |
things up there...this should not be used so ATs can vet patches (wither |
39 |
to ebuilds or to source), the patches should be well tested long before |
40 |
they reach our tree... |
41 |
|
42 |
Lance: |
43 |
|
44 |
I know this is a far cry from what you are proposing, and I understand |
45 |
that the present CVS server cannot handle this sort of load but I |
46 |
believe that this was the original intention at least...someone correct |
47 |
me if I am wrong. |
48 |
|
49 |
I think that this issue has to be nailed down *before* we get any |
50 |
further in discussion. |
51 |
|
52 |
-- |
53 |
Daniel Ostrow |
54 |
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees |
55 |
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel} |
56 |
dostrow@g.o |
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |