Bobby Holley <mailto:bobbyhol...@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 17:27
I don't understand what the overhead is. We don't run CI on user
repos. It's effectively just ssh:// + disk space, right? That seems
totally negligible.
Human overhead in keeping infra running could be spent making our infra
better elsewhere.
Also, project branches are pretty useful for teams working together on
large projects that aren't ready to land in m-c. We only use them when
we need them, so why would we shut them down?
I'm not suggesting killing it. My suggestion is that project branch
experience would likely be better when not hosted by mozilla. It would
still trigger our c-i systems.
Taras
L. David Baron <mailto:dba...@dbaron.org>
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 17:11
On Wednesday 2014-03-26 16:53 -0700, Taras Glek wrote:
*User Repos*
TLDR: I would like to make user repos read-only by April 30th. We
should archive them by May 31st.
Time spent operating user repositories could be spent reducing our
end-to-end continuous integration cycles. These do not seem like
mission-critical repos, seems like developers would be better off
hosting these on bitbucket or github. Using a 3rd-party host has
obvious benefits for collaboration& self-service that our existing
system will never meet.
We are happy to help move specific hg repos to bitbucket.
Once you have migrated your repository, please comment in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=988628so we can free
some disk space.
This seems like a pretty disruptive change -- it involves breaking
links to the places lots of little pieces of our infrastructure
live.
It also means that we're not in control of our own data in a way
that's often useful to us -- having access to our history is often
very important for understanding the present (such as understanding
why code is the way it is). If we don't have reliable archiving of
our history, those of us who think it's important will end up
spreading that work around and probably being less efficient at it.
(For example, I try to save dev-platform threads that I think are
important locally because I don't trust the Google Groups archive to
be permanent.)
It also makes it harder to find Mozilla-related things. For
example, many of us publish version-controlled patch queues as user
repositories. If I'm reviewing a patch queue and want to apply the
queue, I occasionally look around at see if that user has published
the patch queue as a user repository so that I can apply it. If
there's no longer a standard place for them to be published, I'll
end up either sorting out the patch order manually or waiting 24
hours for somebody in another timezone to wake up and tell me where
it is.
*Non-User Repos*
There are too many non-user repos. I'm not convinced we should host
ash, oak, other project branches internally. I think we should focus
on mission-critical repos only. There should be less than a dozen
of those. I would like to stop hosting non-mission-critical
repositories by end of Q2.
The goal of project branches is so that teams can collaborate on a
project that needs continuous integration testing during its
development. Are we not using it for that?
Hosting arbitrary Moz-related hg repositories does not make
strategic sense. We should do the absolute minimum(eg
http://bke.ro/?p=380) required to keep Firefox shipping smoothly and
focus our efforts on making Firefox better.
I think it makes sense if individual developers are going to end up
spending more time/resources working around the fact that we don't
do it than it would take to continue doing it. I don't have data
one way or another, but I think it's a real possibility.
-David
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
