| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:05 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rich Freeman: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> I like Robin's "kickstarter" suggestion in general as a potential way |
| 5 |
>> to improve things. I'll probably comment further in the other |
| 6 |
>> thread... |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I think the solution is to make less pressure on infra. That way we are |
| 10 |
> also less dependant on infra. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> This would be easily possible if gentoo was a collection of high-quality |
| 13 |
> overlays sharing the same base of policies and having tight |
| 14 |
> communication for inter-overlay matters, e.g. with a central bug tracker. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I certainly agree that we should try to focus on the elements of infra |
| 18 |
that are most essential. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
However, I'm not sure that your suggestion will necessarily reduce the |
| 21 |
impact on infra. Moving lots of stuff to overlays doesn't get rid of |
| 22 |
the need for a git repo unless we move EVERYTHING to overlays that |
| 23 |
aren't hosted by Gentoo. We might reduce the number of mirrors we |
| 24 |
need if we stop mirroring some packages, but we won't eliminate the |
| 25 |
need for mirrors unless we don't mirror anything. Etc. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I imagine 95% of the burden of infra is in providing services at all. |
| 28 |
If we didn't host any mailing lists, that would reduce infra. If we |
| 29 |
just retired a few lists, that wouldn't really make much difference. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Just something to keep in mind when trying to reduce our scope. I do |
| 32 |
generally think we should be thinking about what services are most |
| 33 |
important to host ourselves vs just utilizing stuff that is out there. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Rich |
Archives