On 29 Dec 2014, at 16:40, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
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".
Concept can be preserved. Implementation may or may not be able to be
preserved. Or, implementation may not be preserved initially, and will
be fully preserved eventually (as in, when new custom patches are
written).
--Jeff
