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 not seem like > mission-critical repos, seems like developers would be better off > hosting these on bitbucket or github. Using a 3rd-party host has > obvious benefits for collaboration & self-service that our existing > system will never meet. > > We are happy to help move specific hg repos to bitbucket. > > Once you have migrated your repository, please comment in > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=988628so we can free > some disk space.
This seems like a pretty disruptive change -- it involves breaking links to the places lots of little pieces of our infrastructure live. It also means that we're not in control of our own data in a way that's often useful to us -- having access to our history is often very important for understanding the present (such as understanding why code is the way it is). If we don't have reliable archiving of our history, those of us who think it's important will end up spreading that work around and probably being less efficient at it. (For example, I try to save dev-platform threads that I think are important locally because I don't trust the Google Groups archive to be permanent.) It also makes it harder to find Mozilla-related things. For example, many of us publish version-controlled patch queues as user repositories. If I'm reviewing a patch queue and want to apply the queue, I occasionally look around at see if that user has published the patch queue as a user repository so that I can apply it. If there's no longer a standard place for them to be published, I'll end up either sorting out the patch order manually or waiting 24 hours for somebody in another timezone to wake up and tell me where it is. > *Non-User Repos* > There are too many non-user repos. I'm not convinced we should host > ash, oak, other project branches internally. I think we should focus > on mission-critical repos only. There should be less than a dozen > of those. I would like to stop hosting non-mission-critical > repositories by end of Q2. The goal of project branches is so that teams can collaborate on a project that needs continuous integration testing during its development. Are we not using it for that? > Hosting arbitrary Moz-related hg repositories does not make > strategic sense. We should do the absolute minimum(eg > http://bke.ro/?p=380) required to keep Firefox shipping smoothly and > focus our efforts on making Firefox better. I think it makes sense if individual developers are going to end up spending more time/resources working around the fact that we don't do it than it would take to continue doing it. I don't have data one way or another, but I think it's a real possibility. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
