| 1 |
On 4/8/21 7:37 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> It's admittedly a grey area here. We use CDNs for various web |
| 4 |
> components (packages.gentoo.org for example) and we use a CDN for |
| 5 |
> distfiles.gentoo.org. Is Github simply a CDN for gentoo.git? Its an |
| 6 |
> open question we have discussed on the gentoo-nfp list. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> In general I'm not really sold on the benefits of git as a replication |
| 9 |
> protocol; while I dislike running a global rsync network the |
| 10 |
> maintenance of the network is basically nil from infra's end and so I |
| 11 |
> don't feel significant pressure to move to git. Could you perhaps |
| 12 |
> articulate why you think it's important for clients to move to git? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> -A |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It provides much better user experience with continuously faster |
| 18 |
sync-times. Also there's error posts frequently in the forums when using |
| 19 |
rsync, even recently. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The way I see it, utilizing Github, it can already be implemented |
| 22 |
world-wide (wrt rsync mirrors). And those disliking Github can still |
| 23 |
keep using rsync, or pick the Gentoo-infra hosted sync-repo (until it |
| 24 |
breaks). And regarding that, didn't you say you have a lot of money |
| 25 |
needing to be used? ;) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Now I don't know if it's actually *doable* already, or if this is one of |
| 28 |
those things nobody brought up yet. That's why I made the post. (infra, |
| 29 |
releng, handbook). If it *is* doable, I don't see why the defaults can't |
| 30 |
be updated to use git. At some point at least, once we figure out the |
| 31 |
global requirements. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- juippis |
Archives