On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:26:28PM -0600, Brian Harring wrote:
Forums people, any thoughts/requirements?
Currently there are approximately 10 mods/admins. In general it's
possible for us to keep track of who of us is active or not.
Those folks also have toucan access and _should_ update their
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:26:28PM -0600, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:04:44PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
The problem is in detection- an infra issue that could be solved by
either allowing normal devrel people to run the detection scripts
themselves (rather then
Bryan Ãstergaard wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:26:28PM -0600, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:04:44PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
The problem is in detection- an infra issue that could be solved by
either allowing normal devrel people to run the detection scripts
themselves
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:34:20AM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
I think we've fixed some of those issues with solar's script. You just
need to look at the list and make your assumptions. The script is great
to spitting out a list that you can look it. Its not 100%, but its good
enough to at
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 04:10:34PM +0100, Bryan Ãstergaard wrote:
We should be able to handle forums staff the same way I currently check
bugs activity. Only requires ro access to the database and a small
script but this would obviously have to be discussed with infra and
forum leads.
As
Ignoring the yellow star issue, there are a few implementation
concerns/impossibilities with GLEP 41 in its current form.
For instance, the way GLEP 41 suggests doing r/o cvs is not going to work.
It suggests using a single account and placing an SSH key for each arch
tester in that account's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kurt Lieber schrieb:
| Ignoring the yellow star issue, there are a few implementation
| concerns/impossibilities with GLEP 41 in its current form.
|
| For instance, the way GLEP 41 suggests doing r/o cvs is not going to work.
| It suggests using a
Kurt Lieber wrote:
Because, in practice, this doesn't happen. Accounts (or, in this case,
email addresses) stay around until someone gets enough of a bee under their
bonnet to do somethig about it. Since there's no pain or cost for the
AT/HT project lead, there's no reason for them to be
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
For instance, the way GLEP 41 suggests doing r/o cvs is not going to work.
It suggests using a single account and placing an SSH key for each arch
tester in that account's ~/.ssh/authorized_keys file.
text in question
Get read-only
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
Now, the same question for email -- how do we manage aliases, especially
for inactive, retired and semi-retired arch testers? We could track usage
in logs, but between mailing list subscriptions, bugzilla notifications and
all sorts
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 08:03:55PM +0100 or thereabouts, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
Now, the same question for email -- how do we manage aliases, especially
for inactive, retired and semi-retired arch testers? We could track usage
in
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 07:14:03PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 08:03:55PM +0100 or thereabouts, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
Isn't this an issue that also exists for the Gentoo developers in general?
Not as much since we can track things like last cvs commit, last login to
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:51:15PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
I'll again point out that the glep doesn't actually mandate it, states
it's the lowest common denominator that's acceptable.
And I'll point out that there's more than one issue that we're concerned
with here.
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:03 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
I'm going to come up with an implementation plan that
looks something like the following:
* all SSH keys and email addresses for arch testers will auto-expire after
60 days. If an arch tester needs to have continued access, a gentoo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:03:58PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:51:15PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
Stop pointing at one interpretation of it that sucks, when the glep
_does_ leave it open to you how to implement it. It's a waste of
people's time
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM + or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
For instance, the way GLEP 41 suggests doing r/o cvs is not going to work.
So, in the interests of trying to find a solution to this particular
problem...
As I understand the GLEP, the main requirement here is to give
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:30:53PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
Infra doesn't even do retirement beyond when _devrel_ asks them to. If
that process is slow, ask for help and someone will chip in and improve
it (mainly to minimize bottleneck involved).
OK, fine. Devrel does not
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:44:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Funy, I was just pondering that myself... is authenticated rsync
really possible?
Yes, it has its own auth mechanism. We actually use it for some automated
cron jobs that we have.
The only downside to this that I
On 11/19/05, Kurt Lieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:44:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Funy, I was just pondering that myself... is authenticated rsync
really possible?
Yes, it has its own auth mechanism. We actually use it for some automated
cron
Sorry for two mails in a row.. but out of curiosity, instead of using
30 minute rsync, why not 30 minute mirror of cvs? KDE does this fairly
well, they even have it something like every 5 minutes, is there any
reason mirrored cvs is not possible//feasible? is this something svn
has gotten better
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:52:08PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
Devrel doesn't have much issues in actually retiring a dev from where
I'm sitting.
Then I guess we'll disagree on this.
The problem is in detection- an infra issue that could be solved by
either allowing normal
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:47 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
OK, fine. Devrel does not have an established track record of retiring
devs who are otherwise inactive. Please fix this. Please also get an
agreement from them that they're going to be willing to take on the
additional load of these arch
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:59:46PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Sorry for two mails in a row.. but out of curiosity, instead of using
30 minute rsync, why not 30 minute mirror of cvs? KDE does this fairly
well, they even have it something like every 5 minutes, is there any
reason
Tres Melton wrote:
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:47 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
OK, fine. Devrel does not have an established track record of retiring
devs who are otherwise inactive. Please fix this. Please also get an
agreement from them that they're going to be willing to take on the
additional
Lance Albertson wrote:
I see this as something that devrel would take care of since they
already do this for developers. They already have the tools/access to
the places for such things. Would rather not have another set of folks
with that access.
So do I. Hint: Homer Parker is a devrel member
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:56 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
So, can other arch testers please pitch in with their $.02? If we gave you
rsync instead of CVS, would that be sufficient? Or do you need the
revision history, etc. of CVS?
And, any objections to a ~30 minute delay between CVS-this
Lares Moreau wrote:
I personally do not need Revision histories, I can't speak for other
ATs. Rsync with 30min delay is a noted improvement over the standard
rsync policy. Does this also allow us to sync to main rotation mirroes
is that already overstressed? I ask because IIRC it may take
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:04:44PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
The problem is in detection- an infra issue that could be solved by
either allowing normal devrel people to run the detection scripts
themselves (rather then asking infra to do so)
First I've heard of this request. Has a bug
Lares Moreau wrote:
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 18:13 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
is the 25-55 minute lag good enough?
It may need to be good enough. Personally I would like to have 5-7
min. That way when I'm working with a dev, I can keep up to speed with
her/him without having to resort to
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 19:02 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
For now, I don't want to rsync more than every 30 minutes (concerns of
overloading the main cvs server). Pylon has mentioned that the newer
version of cvs has better commit hooks that may allow for more of a live
replication effect,
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Sat Nov 19 2005, 04:42:41PM CST]
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM + or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
If the requirement is for r/o CVS access to the same CVS server that the
pure-blooded developers use (sorry, couldn't resist) then it may require
upgrades to our
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Sat Nov 19 2005, 04:47:37PM CST]
OK, fine. Devrel does not have an established track record of retiring
devs who are otherwise inactive.
Just as an aside, I've seen scores (if not more) of devs retired within
the last couple of months, so I think that problem is currently
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:25 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Sat Nov 19 2005, 04:42:41PM CST]
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM + or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
If the requirement is for r/o CVS access to the same CVS server that the
pure-blooded developers use
On Saturday 19 November 2005 08:25 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote:
In any event, do we need a new server anyway? We actually do have some
money that could be spent on such things, and the CVS server is really
high on the list of for which I, personally, would be more than willing
to spend it.
Ned Ludd wrote:
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 22:25 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Sat Nov 19 2005, 04:42:41PM CST]
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM + or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
If the requirement is for r/o CVS access to the same CVS server that the
pure-blooded
On Saturday 19 November 2005 08:50 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
Yeah, we defiantly could use a beefy new server for CVS/SVN. Just make
sure you chat with robbat2/Pylon on the specifics for the requirements.
I believe the main thing they wanted was lots of ram.
As discussed before, the new dev
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:04:13PM -0800, Corey Shields wrote:
On Saturday 19 November 2005 08:50 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
Yeah, we defiantly could use a beefy new server for CVS/SVN. Just make
sure you chat with robbat2/Pylon on the specifics for the requirements.
I believe the main
37 matches
Mail list logo
