Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] utilizing GH functionality that Gentoo infra does not provide
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 04:17:18
Message-Id: YkZ81dkvhicX56/S@vapier
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] utilizing GH functionality that Gentoo infra does not provide by Sam James
1 On 01 Apr 2022 02:27, Sam James wrote:
2 > > On 29 Mar 2022, at 18:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
3 > > * release management (e.g. distfiles hosting)
4 >
5 > I'm not sure I love this one under the test of "if our GH got wiped tomorrow, would there
6 > be much impact?"
7 >
8 > If downstream and others are using e.g. pax-utils with an unreliable SRC_URI,
9 > that *is* a pain, and it's not much comfort to then tell them that it "wasn't
10 > covered by infra anyway" or something.
12 we're already in that situation now. dev.g.o is very unreliable. devs clean
13 their space, or they retire, and all the archives they accumulated vanish when
14 infra decides to remove their www space.
16 i'll bet hard cash everytime on GH being more reliable in the short, medium,
17 and long term than dev.g.o.
19 > We do need a proper solution in infra for hosting resources though. I thought
20 > we had a bug for it but I can't find it right this second, bu the idea would be to expand
21 > to more easily host distfiles and stuff independently of
22 > individual developers (whose links go dead when they retire).
24 everyone has been saying this for over a decade. probably even 2 decades at
25 this point. wishing for it doesn't make it happen. i grok that complaining
26 about it also doesn't make it happen :p. but folks who have been infra for a
27 long time have already thought about & discussed it much longer than i have,
28 and we're still where we were 20 years ago -- dev.g.o.
30 it doesn't make sense to me to ban a solution that exists now, and would be
31 trivial to migrate off of if Gentoo infra ever does come up with a solution.
32 especially considering many Gentoo devs are using GH right now for Gentoo
33 projects and the only place you can find their releases are on GH, not even
34 on dev.g.o.
36 > > * CI runs (e.g. GH actions)
37 >
38 > I don't object to this and free CPU is free CPU. I just wouldn't want to
39 > create binary artefacts from it, but I don't think you're proposing that.
41 i would never trust such artifacts in the first place. it's begging for
42 supply chain abuse.
44 > > * Projects for task management
45 >
46 > I struggle with this a bit more because it'd hurt archeology efforts
47 > if GitHub got wiped.
49 i agree, although i note that exact situation occurs now _a lot_ because we
50 accept PRs and a ton of conversation happens there. so if we ever migrate
51 off of GH, any migration process presumably would already have to compensate
52 for moving metadata.
54 > > * possibly even Discussions since it'll provide a clear/scoped space for
55 > > non-Gentoo users & devs. Gentoo forums are huge and require custom accts,
56 > > and mailing lists are huge and a bit restrictive old timey.
57 >
58 > I'm not opposed to this if it's just for user support / queries rather than
59 > Bugs. Making it easier for people to seek help isn't a bad thing.
61 right, bugs belong on bugs.g.o.
62 -mike


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature