[gentoo-dev] Discussing stuff that is not appropriate to discuss
On 01/10/2012 13:54, Rich Freeman wrote: I don't think we can keep the discussion off -dev forever though. It seems like we're close to being able to implement, which means lots of changes that impact all devs. I can't imagine that we'd want to implement that without some kind of council vote. Perhaps the appropriate approach is to propose a GLEP? No, the appropriate approach is first to _talk with Infra_. Guys I said that before, but unless you actually factor in Infra when you want infrastructure stuff done, you have to do the work yourself. And it might not be nice and fun. Honestly, this whole thread, with the exception of Rafael, makes me facepalm incredibly, because everybody is saying it's easy! without asking the people who have done the work up to now and will have to manage it. And it pisses me off. (Among other things, because it feels like most of the complains about the way tinderbox's logs are handled, it's easy! but nobody but me is ever going to pick up the task, ...) So to close this in a few words: You walk the walk, you talk the talk. And I have no intention to read another mail with what other awesome thing we can do if we migrate to git and we don't even have to worry about what it might happen on the serverside because git is just magical and will sort itself out, okay? -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussing stuff that is not appropriate to discuss
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Honestly, this whole thread, with the exception of Rafael, makes me facepalm incredibly, because everybody is saying it's easy! without asking the people who have done the work up to now and will have to manage it. Noone said it's easy. Please don't put words in my mouth. Several said it needs to just-be-done, without further consensus. I support that. Everyone also agrees that there will be issues, but I think the idea is that switching sooner rather than later and fixing up the bits that break is fine. Even if it takes a while. And it pisses me off. It shouldn't. There may be others on the list besides Gentoo infra who know a thing or two about infrastructure, operations, CVS, Git, and so on. most of the complains about the way tinderbox's logs are handled I have no idea about that issue, but it seems quite distinct. So to close this in a few words: You walk the walk, you talk the talk. That's bullshit (and the saying is backwards). I could help out, I know a couple of infra guys, but I can't even get recruited because quizzes need too much contiguous time out of my schedule.. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussing stuff that is not appropriate to discuss
On 01/10/2012 14:41, Peter Stuge wrote: Noone said it's easy. «This just strikes me as something that is about at the point where we could just do it.» This was Rich at 11.29 Pacific Time. Several said it needs to just-be-done, without further consensus. I support that. Everyone also agrees that there will be issues, but I think the idea is that switching sooner rather than later and fixing up the bits that break is fine. Even if it takes a while. Okay so you have your idea. Keep it. But don't try to force it on people who are actual developers. It shouldn't. There may be others on the list besides Gentoo infra who know a thing or two about infrastructure, operations, CVS, Git, and so on. Sure, but they are not Gentoo Infra. And who has to maintain this? Gentoo Infra. You want to do the conversion and maintain it yourself? Feel free, nobody's stopping you. You're free to fork. I have no idea about that issue, but it seems quite distinct. It's the same bullshit of insisting that someone else should do something just because you think it's better, without actually asking for feasibility. I could help out, I know a couple of infra guys, but I can't even get recruited because quizzes need too much contiguous time out of my schedule.. That's true for everybody. And knowing the infra guys doesn't mean that you're infra still. I'm not infra either and I don't speak _for_ them, but for this kind of stuff, instead of starting a SEVENTEEN POSTS thread on a mailing list that should be dedicated to other stuff, the solution is first _ask what the status is_. With all due respect, but having Michael going off a tangent on caching proxy servers, Rich starting to ponder between bandwidth and CPU, and you calling for shutdown dates, all without changing a stupid subject line to at least show you're no longer speaking about the original topic (it's not like people can be psychic that you're talking about GIT migrations when the topic says CIA replacement), is obnoxious. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussing stuff that is not appropriate to discuss
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: With all due respect, .. you calling for shutdown dates .. is obnoxious. I don't know about respectful, but oh well.. Another idea I have, besides the go-ahead+fix what breaks, is that after everything has broken, Gentoo developers will not be spamming this mailing list like three-year-olds screaming rude complaints about how things do not work and calling infra bad names, but that they will actually *help out* with whatever needs fixing. Gentoo has a whole bunch of very competent developers in many different areas, including yourself of course!, and I'm pretty sure that there is no better way to get everything fixed *fast* than to simply go-ahead. Some (of course not all, and that's fine too) devs would surely get involved to help out with whatever issues need to be solved. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussing stuff that is not appropriate to discuss
On 01/10/2012 15:21, Peter Stuge wrote: Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: With all due respect, .. you calling for shutdown dates .. all without changing a stupid subject line to at least show you're no longer speaking about the original topic (it's not like people can be psychic that you're talking about GIT migrations when the topic says CIA replacement), Yes just cut out the part that makes it obnoxious, will ya? is obnoxious. Another idea I have, besides the go-ahead+fix what breaks, is that after everything has broken, Gentoo developers will not be spamming this mailing list like three-year-olds screaming rude complaints about how things do not work and calling infra bad names, but that they will actually *help out* with whatever needs fixing. Then you probably don't know half the Gentoo developers -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussing stuff that is not appropriate to discuss
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Another idea I have, besides the go-ahead+fix what breaks, is that after everything has broken, Gentoo developers will not be spamming this mailing list like three-year-olds screaming rude complaints about how things do not work and calling infra bad names, but that they will actually *help out* with whatever needs fixing. Then you probably don't know half the Gentoo developers I think they are the ones who should fork. :) //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussing stuff that is not appropriate to discuss
On 01/10/2012 15:53, Peter Stuge wrote: Then you probably don't know half the Gentoo developers I think they are the ones who should fork. :) Unfortunately the problem is that they tend to linger around even after forking... -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussing stuff that is not appropriate to discuss
If you're going to paint me and the other folks expressing opinions as entitled mouth-breathers, certainly you can't expect not to hear any reply because it's off-topic! On 10/1/2012 2:00 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 01/10/2012 13:54, Rich Freeman wrote: I don't think we can keep the discussion off -dev forever though. It seems like we're close to being able to implement, which means lots of changes that impact all devs. I can't imagine that we'd want to implement that without some kind of council vote. Perhaps the appropriate approach is to propose a GLEP? No, the appropriate approach is first to _talk with Infra_. Guys I said that before, but unless you actually factor in Infra when you want infrastructure stuff done, you have to do the work yourself. And it might not be nice and fun. Well I definitely can't argue with the above, and I didn't know about -scm but, hey, you learn something new every day; anyhow I'm not sure it's makes it inappropriate to discuss. So to close this in a few words: You walk the walk, you talk the talk. And I have no intention to read another mail with what other awesome thing we can do if we migrate to git and we don't even have to worry about what it might happen on the serverside because git is just magical and will sort itself out, okay? OK, also agreed that git lacks entirely in magical properties -- I wasn't aware of having said anything suggesting otherwise. I have some limited experience as a git admin and am aware of git's considerable limitations with respect to provisioning, security configuration, scalability and other non-optional features for a public-facing deployment. There is more to be said on the matter but I'll take that to -scm. Anyhow, I get it: administering the vcs for a huge project such as Gentoo is very hard work. If I somehow gave some other impression, I'm sorry. Perhaps Rich and I insensitively voiced our shared assumption that Gentoo's continued reliance on cvs stems from a lack of motivation and consensus, rather than a shortage of labor and resources. Then again, if the folks in the trenches doing the work think I've slighted them, surely they are perfectly capable of chewing me out on their own behalfs and don't need you to do it for them? I'm not looking for a fight, but after reading the above and some other remarks in this thread, by you and others, I did want to at least clarify my position: No, of course I couldn't possibly know all the repercussions of a change like this, but I also find it difficult to believe that whatever hurdles exist are so intractable that we'd might as well just throw in the towel. Although I regret any bad feelings I may have caused, I stand by my statements. To be clear, the magic of the Gentoo community -- not git -- is what I believe will make this doable, and yes, I appreciate that that magic is actually just a lot of people doing a lot of nasty, thankless chores. As for the whole put-up/shut-up business, I'd be happy to help out any way I can (although tbh I'd still say whatever was on my mind even if I was too busy). I'll contact Infrastructure to make sure they're aware of me. -gmt
Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussing stuff that is not appropriate to discuss
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: On 01/10/2012 17:51, Gregory M. Turner wrote: Anyhow, I get it: administering the vcs for a huge project such as Gentoo is very hard work. If I somehow gave some other impression, I'm sorry. Perhaps Rich and I insensitively voiced our shared assumption that Gentoo's continued reliance on cvs stems from a lack of motivation and consensus, rather than a shortage of labor and resources. That's definitely not the case. While we do have had some complains (mostly from Prefix last I knew) about git's working, the consensus for going to git is there. The problems are vastly technical. Problems such as how many developers would be fine with having to checkout 2GB of history to be able to commit? git support shallow clones but not if you want to commit to them. Then again, if the folks in the trenches doing the work think I've slighted them, surely they are perfectly capable of chewing me out on their own behalfs and don't need you to do it for them? It is at the very least disturbing that you think that people whose work, and commitment, has been overlooked for a whole discussion can't be bothered by it unless they are actually reactive aggressively. I know the kind of thankless tasks Infra has to deal with on a daily basis, and I think they deserve more respect that most of the time they are given here, especially when technical challenges are billed under the we just need to push harder for it to move banner like this time. Some fascinating problems (social and technical) to address. I joined the -scm list because it was implied that these things would be discussed over there. Could we take this outside? I'd be interested in looking at solutions...but I don't want to drop them in here, since it's been pounded on a few times by a few people that this isn't the place. -- :wq
