FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-27-2007, 05:15 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Hosting and Supporting GIT conversion of Fedora CVS to enable downstream development efforts and distributions

On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 09:21 -0800, Manas Saksena wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to request support for hosting git conversion of Fedora CVS
> as per Lennert's post to fedora-infrastructure-list.
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-infrastructure-list/2007-November/msg00136.html
>
> While there were a few responses to the mail (both support and
> skepticism) there was no clear decision.
>
> The basic idea of this effort is to enable downstream development
> efforts that make use of the fedora package repository as their upstream
> source.
>
> The specific efforts that I am interested are:
>
> 1. Building small footprint systems (for embedded systems use).
> 2. Cross-building (a subset of) Fedora packages.
> 3. Support for architectures and platforms that are not (yet) integrated
> into the Fedora project.
> 4. Building a GNOME Mobile distribution.
>
> etc. Others may find it useful for other purposes.
>
> The git tree does not have to be hosted in the fedora infrastructure,
> but it seems like the natural place for it to be. It also sends the
> message that the Fedora project encourages downstream efforts that can
> leverage Fedora into areas that are not of direct/current interest for
> the project.
>
> So, in summary, I would appreciate if the Fedora board can consider this
> request and provide clear guidance on whether this activity can/should
> be supported through the fedora infrastructure.

I'm not positive but this doesn't seem like a board decision. If the
releng, fesco and infrastructure teams are at an impasse we can take it
up for discussion but I don't see a reason to not let those groups do
what they're supposed to do.

-sv


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-28-2007, 12:32 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Hosting and Supporting GIT conversion of Fedora CVS to enable downstream development efforts and distributions

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 13:08 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
>
> > I'm not positive but this doesn't seem like a board decision. If the
> > releng, fesco and infrastructure teams are at an impasse we can take it
> > up for discussion but I don't see a reason to not let those groups do
> > what they're supposed to do.
>
> Well, it has already been discussed in fedora-infrastructure list with
> no agreement on whether this is something we should do or not and that's
> the reason it is being escalated to the Fedora Project Board. IMO it is
> certainly something the Fedora Project Board should look into
> encouraging for two reasons.
>
> It seems the natural next step for being a better upstream after
> enabling spins to look at what we can do to enable derivatives (such as
> OLPC or the work Marvell is doing) which are not just straight subsets
> of the Fedora repository and it could potentially help us evaluate
> whether we want to move to distributed SCM's (which also seems to have
> been discussed without any decision repeatedly). Both of these should be
> considered by the board individually and in this context too.

When last I looked it sure sounded like fedora-infrastructure thought it
was a duplication of what we already have and an odd duplication at
that. Moreover, it wasn't like fedora-infrastructure couldn't come to a
unanimous decision on the subject, if you read the original thread it
was more like no one cared a whole huge amount and the subject just
died.

Yesterday mike responded with a detailed comment and I agreed with him.
It's a misuse of our very limited disk space and it's not obvious why a
git repo is the one item to waste the disk space on versus another scm.


-sv


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-28-2007, 02:25 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Hosting and Supporting GIT conversion of Fedora CVS to enable downstream development efforts and distributions

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 09:35 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:

> I don't think anybody disagrees that we should move to another SCM that
> allows for better downstream interaction. However just a direct copy
> of our workflow to git doesn't help. Nobody wants to work on the hard
> problem, thus nothing gets done, no matter /who/ wants it.
>

The sad part is the above work is particularly hard b/c whomever works
on it will have to deal with the never ending screed from users of
whichever scm you didn't choose to use.

I can't think of anything as demotivating as that.

-sv



_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-28-2007, 05:59 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default Hosting and Supporting GIT conversion of Fedora CVS to enable downstream development efforts and distributions

On Nov 28, 2007 9:15 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frankly, I don't think the Board has any business in this discussion
> yet. There are known pain points in providing this (and switching SCMs
> all together), the benefits to Fedora are little to none at the moment,
> and it can be hosted elsewhere.

I don't see much here that needs rubber stamping from the board.
Let me sum up where i think the discussion is at:

1) A community member has done the necessary work to implement a way to make
a copy of fedora's cvs and turn it into something git friendly. This
gives downstream people who are comfortable with git a way a new
interact with our package sources. This is not a bad thing, and I
decree that as a board member such initiative should be applauded.
I'd send him a t-shirt and some stickers, but I don't have any.

2) This person feels comfortable enough with how its working to want
to expose this as a public consumable for other people. The question
is how to best do that.

3) There are some concerns about doing this as part of infrastructure
right now. There is some resource duplication here and since git has
not been selected as the next piece of technology to use its not clear
that providing git as a fedora services versus some other technology
is worth the resource burn. If there was a long term directive to
move to git for Fedora's usage, then there would be a compelling
reason to burn internal infrastructure resources to duplicate cvs into
git.

4) Infrastructure is willing to help make it easier for a community
hosted solution to get access to cvs for duplication.

Do I have the story so far? If there isn't a cohesive plan to start
transitioning to git internally over sometime scale, I'm not sure
exactly what I'm suppose to be supporting. I've got other things I'd
like to see infrastructure diskspace and human resources used for like
spin source isos, that I feel are far more critical to provide than a
duplication of cvs content as a git consumable. I mean I'm not going
to actively lobby against duplicating git but I've no reason to prefer
to see resources used for this over other things.

Here's the reality as I see it. We simply can not do everything as
part of internal infrastructure. Sometimes this project will need to
rely on community provided services to extend the projects
capabilities into new areas. Some of these things will eventually be
pulled into the project as an internal service based on the success
and growth of the service while it was being hosted externally. Other
services won't be for a variety of reasons (though none of the
efforts should be considered failures even if they are discarded or
reach a niche audience)

What the Board needs to figure out is how to make it possible to make
the Fedora brand a big enough tent to encompass services that are not
internally hosted, in an equitable manner. Encourage people to host
community services, give credit where credit is due, and give these
external community services some credibility as being an outgrowth of
the project and some recognition as to the effort being made
regardless as whether the service is adopted/co-opted by the Fedora
project offically .

-jef

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-28-2007, 07:23 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Hosting and Supporting GIT conversion of Fedora CVS to enable downstream development efforts and distributions

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 11:25 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> I really dont know what sort of high level vision statement your
> asking for here.
> Does the board want Fedora to use a distributed SCM at some point? Is
> that the sort of vision statement you want to hear.I personally don't
> give a rats ass what pieces of technology Fedora as a project actually
> makes a commitment to using as long as it makes it easier for us to be
> a conduit for upstream development. Any technology choice which makes
> it easier for downstream to consume us, but doesn't make it easier for
> downstream to contribute back to us and then us back into upstream
> projects is NOT something I want to see and runs counter to the
> upstreaming mantra. Certainly duplicating our cvs as a git collection
> is not going to help make it easier to contribute back to us and then
> on into upstream.
>
> The distributed SCM issue is absolutely mired in implementation
> details. Considering the landscape I'm not even sure we end up with a
> net win in terms of easing the contribution burden by selecting a
> single candidate technology. I'm willing to wait for the SCM SIG to
> present a roadmap.


holy crap I like this answer.
+10

-sv


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-28-2007, 07:25 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default Hosting and Supporting GIT conversion of Fedora CVS to enable downstream development efforts and distributions

On Nov 28, 2007 10:20 AM, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> This involves figuring out which of the community setup services which
> the board needs to endorse as part of the Fedora brand and that involves
> some amount of rubber stamping IMO. Whether it is setup internally or
> hosted externally is really a implementation detail if we all have a
> better understanding of the kind of the things the Fedora Board
> collectively wants to see happen (ie) vision and that is the
> communication and direction that I am really asking for apart from
> whatever routine short term management of the project.

While vision is important, pointing in an arbitrary direction without
taking into account what the momentum isn't a particularly good way to
lead. Momentum must be accounted for in such things, and quite
honestly I don't see much in the way of obvious momentum behind a
particular SCM. Everyone wants a pony, no one can decide on what
color the pony needs to be. I'd prefer to see an informed proposal
from the SCM SIG, before pointing off in an arbitrary direction
without the support of the people willing and capable of doing the
work to make it happen. The Board is more effective if it spends more
time serving and supporting initiatives instead of dictating them.

Are you expecting the Board to be able to anticipate all the ways the
community members can be clever? Are you looking for unfunded and
unmanned directives for projects that the Board would like to see
implemented? In this specific case, I certainly never would have
thought of duplicating cvs as git. Shame on me.

I really dont know what sort of high level vision statement your
asking for here.
Does the board want Fedora to use a distributed SCM at some point? Is
that the sort of vision statement you want to hear.I personally don't
give a rats ass what pieces of technology Fedora as a project actually
makes a commitment to using as long as it makes it easier for us to be
a conduit for upstream development. Any technology choice which makes
it easier for downstream to consume us, but doesn't make it easier for
downstream to contribute back to us and then us back into upstream
projects is NOT something I want to see and runs counter to the
upstreaming mantra. Certainly duplicating our cvs as a git collection
is not going to help make it easier to contribute back to us and then
on into upstream.

The distributed SCM issue is absolutely mired in implementation
details. Considering the landscape I'm not even sure we end up with a
net win in terms of easing the contribution burden by selecting a
single candidate technology. I'm willing to wait for the SCM SIG to
present a roadmap.

> Agreed. As part of these, we should look into the kind of activities
> that help the Fedora "ecosystem" and not just the direct benefits for
> the project. Linking to Creative Commons from start.fp.o as an example
> of what we have already done along those lines.

If we had to host all of Creative Commons internally, we wouldn't be
able to do it. Supporting an externally hosted git duplication of our
cvs is still on the table in the original thread on the infrastructure
list. Are we talking about linking to an externally hosted git
duplication of our cvs?

-jef

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:51 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org