1 |
> On 29 Mar 2022, at 18:56, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> starting a dedicated thread for |
4 |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/ec2b560480627371a7bda5c85924eddd |
5 |
> |
6 |
|
7 |
Just as an introduction, I'd like to say I am deeply sympathetic to the need |
8 |
to be practical and it's easily what I prioritise most. So I do get it. |
9 |
|
10 |
> GH provides a lot of functionality for free that Gentoo infra does not cover. |
11 |
> these are particularly useful for projects that are used beyond Gentoo. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> * release management (e.g. distfiles hosting) |
14 |
|
15 |
I'm not sure I love this one under the test of "if our GH got wiped tomorrow, would there |
16 |
be much impact?" |
17 |
|
18 |
If downstream and others are using e.g. pax-utils with an unreliable SRC_URI, |
19 |
that *is* a pain, and it's not much comfort to then tell them that it "wasn't |
20 |
covered by infra anyway" or something. |
21 |
|
22 |
We do need a proper solution in infra for hosting resources though. I thought |
23 |
we had a bug for it but I can't find it right this second, bu the idea would be to expand |
24 |
projects.gentoo.org to more easily host distfiles and stuff independently of |
25 |
individual developers (whose links go dead when they retire). |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
> * CI runs (e.g. GH actions) |
29 |
|
30 |
I don't object to this and free CPU is free CPU. I just wouldn't want to |
31 |
create binary artefacts from it, but I don't think you're proposing that. |
32 |
|
33 |
> * Projects for task management |
34 |
|
35 |
I struggle with this a bit more because it'd hurt archeology efforts |
36 |
if GitHub got wiped. |
37 |
|
38 |
> * possibly even Discussions since it'll provide a clear/scoped space for |
39 |
> non-Gentoo users & devs. Gentoo forums are huge and require custom accts, |
40 |
> and mailing lists are huge and a bit restrictive old timey. |
41 |
> |
42 |
|
43 |
I'm not opposed to this if it's just for user support / queries rather than |
44 |
Bugs. Making it easier for people to seek help isn't a bad thing. |
45 |
|
46 |
> this is all orthogonal to the git content itself (objects, branches, tags, |
47 |
> etc...). those should remain in the read-only clobber mode that exists now. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> there is no downside for Gentoo here. it's all functionality that can be |
50 |
> had for free, does not introduce any risks, and many devs are already using |
51 |
> GH heavily for Gentoo projects -- albeit, they don't do it under the Gentoo |
52 |
> umbrella, they fork it into their own personal space and maintain it there. |
53 |
|
54 |
Yep, and I'm guilty of this as well. I've started making a list of some important |
55 |
repos we really need to mirror onto our infra at least (inc, but not limited to, |
56 |
pkgcore). |