Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

*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

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

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

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

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. 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

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 3/26/14, 4:53 PM, 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-cri

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

Gregory Szorc Wednesday, March 26, 2014 17:40 On 3/26/14, 4:53 PM, 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 en

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

Bobby Holley 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 ou

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 04:53:27PM -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. The

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:40:36PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > On 3/26/14, 4:53 PM, 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

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On Thursday 2014-03-27 14:11 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > Note that while user repositories are self-service on the creation side, > there is no obvious way to self-service a user repo removal. I'm not in They're just as easy to remove as to create: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Creating

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 3/26/14, 10:11 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:40:36PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: On 3/26/14, 4:53 PM, 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

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:32:07PM -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > On Thursday 2014-03-27 14:11 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > Note that while user repositories are self-service on the creation side, > > there is no obvious way to self-service a user repo removal. I'm not in > > They're just as easy

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 02:42:13PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:32:07PM -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > > On Thursday 2014-03-27 14:11 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > Note that while user repositories are self-service on the creation side, > > > there is no obvious way to s

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:40:39PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > On 3/26/14, 10:11 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:40:36PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > >>On 3/26/14, 4:53 PM, Taras Glek wrote: > >>>*User Repos* > >>>TLDR: I would like to make user repos read-only by April 30th

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 27/03/14 00:53, 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. I think that if you truly intend to go ahead with this, the news will need way, way wider circulation than mozilla.dev.platform. I have some use

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

Also, if you are using a COW filesystem, initial clones should be nearly free and you'd only pay the extra copy cost for changesets added afterwards. This could help dramatically with mozilla-central clones. Out of curiosity, is there open source software for a shared Git object store? git. g

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

Want to move to github? (0) sudo apt-get install python-setuptools (1) sudo easy_install hg-git (2) add |hggit =| under [extensions] in your .hgrc file (3) Go to GitHub.com and create your new repo. (4) cd (5) hg bookmark -r default master (6) hg push git+ssh://g...@github.com// On Wednesday, M

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:58:48PM -0700, Doug Turner wrote: > Want to move to github? > > (0) sudo apt-get install python-setuptools > (1) sudo easy_install hg-git > (2) add |hggit =| under [extensions] in your .hgrc file > (3) Go to GitHub.com and create your new repo. > (4) cd > (5) hg bookmar

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

Most of mine were patch queues. Your results may vary. On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:58:48PM -0700, Doug Turner wrote: > > Want to move to github? > > > > (0) sudo apt-get install python-setuptools > > (1) sudo easy_install hg-git > > (2) add |hgg

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

For talos development we allow pointing at a user specific repo instead of the master one. This has greatly reduced the time to bring up new tests. This could easily be hosted elsewhere, but we chose to restrict it to user repos for a security measure. You have to have cleared some form of ba

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 14-03-26 07:53 PM, 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

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 3/27/2014 1:11 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:40:36PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: On 3/26/14, 4:53 PM, 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

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 3/26/2014 9:15 PM, Taras Glek wrote: Bobby Holley 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 keepin

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 3/27/14, 12:53 AM, 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-cr

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 3/27/2014 2:58 AM, Doug Turner wrote: Want to move to github? (0) sudo apt-get install python-setuptools (1) sudo easy_install hg-git (2) add |hggit =| under [extensions] in your .hgrc file (3) Go to GitHub.com and create your new repo. (4) cd (5) hg bookmark -r default master (6) hg push gi

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 3/27/2014 1:58 AM, Doug Turner wrote: Want to move to github? (0) sudo apt-get install python-setuptools (1) sudo easy_install hg-git (2) add |hggit =| under [extensions] in your .hgrc file (3) Go to GitHub.com and create your new repo. (4) cd (5) hg bookmark -r default master (6) hg push gi

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 14-03-26 08:27 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > 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. > FTR from an operations standpoint, it is never "just". Never. If it was *just* we wouldn't even

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 27/03/2014 13:43, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 3/27/2014 2:58 AM, Doug Turner wrote: Want to move to github? (0) sudo apt-get install python-setuptools (1) sudo easy_install hg-git (2) add |hggit =| under [extensions] in your .hgrc file (3) Go to GitHub.com and create your new repo. (4) cd

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 27/03/14 14:17, Armen Zambrano G. wrote: On 14-03-26 08:27 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: 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. FTR from an operations standpoint, it is never "just".

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

What are "mission critical" repos since you just put everything in the same list? If we start removing project branches to be put on outsourced VCS we remove any sheriff support for that project branch since, as been pointed out many times, we dont have access to the server side commit hook

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

Taras Glek schrieb: *User Repos* TLDR: I would like to make user repos read-only by April 30th. When that happens, I will stop running any custom crash reports and dashboards that the stability program depends on, at least until further notice. I do not want to run a non-Mozilla-hosted repo f

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 3/27/14, 6:37 AM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 3/26/2014 9:15 PM, Taras Glek wrote: Bobby Holley 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 s

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

>*User Repos* >TLDR: I would like to make user repos read-only by April 30th. We should >archive them by May 31st. As mentioned, too fast. >Time spent operating user repositories could be spent reducing our >end-to-end continuous integration cycles. If we're spending any significant time or mo

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 03/27/2014 10:10 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: It's worth noting that hg-git is having some performance issues with github right now. A basic clone of a 1MB repository takes well over a minute before it starts doing anything. When I was converting my repositories last night I found that altho

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

On 3/27/2014 12:11 PM, Andrew Sutherland wrote: On 03/27/2014 10:10 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: It's worth noting that hg-git is having some performance issues with github right now. A basic clone of a 1MB repository takes well over a minute before it starts doing anything. When I was convert

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

Hi, Mozilla's Manifest principle #8 states: 8.Transparent community-based processes promote participation, accountability and trust. Decision making, afaik, is a process. So... Taras Glek wrote: *User Repos* TLDR: I would like to make user repos read-only by April 30th. We should archive t

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

Wow, okay. A lot to address here. The primary instigator of this migrating of user repositories off to external services came from when we were (and still are) crunched for disk space after restructuring our Mercurial infrastructure to use local disks. We did this for several reasons: * An inte

Re: Spring cleaning: Reducing Number & Footprint of HG Repos

>Additionally I've been setting up a host named hg-archive.mozilla.org with >a lower SLA to shelve repositories that have not been touched in many many >years. Deleting this old code from hg.m.o, even if it's available elsewhere >if an unpopular thing to do, so it's unsurprising I didn't receive mu