On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 16:19:37 -0500 "Jeff Mitchell" <mitch...@kde.org> wrote: > On 29 Dec 2014, at 15:20, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote: > > I am absolutely not qualified to comment on the pain this is > > causing to > > you sysadmins. But are we talking about / is the problem inherent > > to the > > _concept_ of scratch repos, or is it a problem of the > > implementation of > > how exactly scratch repos are created? > > I'm honestly not sure how to answer that; scratch repos are very much > an implementation because we had a solution. It seemed like something > that could be useful, and we had the capability with the current > software, so we did it. In hindsight, it has been problematic.
What I mean is, it seems somewhat unclear what aspects exactly of scratch repos are the problem. So I'll try to clarify: To me, the essence of the "concept" of a scratch repo is the three points, I listed, i.e. (reiterating), creating a repo - without _any_ questions asked (other than the name) - in a not-quite-as-visible area / prefix - following more liberal rules, e.g. about force pushing A different aspect, that is not so important to me, is that scratch repos can be created instantly via certain SSH commands without any interaction with sysadmins. This is what I referred to as "implementation". In these terms, "concept" is what I care about. And if this "concept" can be preserved, consider me happy with any "implementation". Regards Thomas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
