[llvm-dev] GitHub Hooks

Tue Jul 19 16:06:14 PDT 2016

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> Perhaps it helps to know that I have access to the machines and have helped debug many of the current problems. I'm not speaking from the outside, guessing how hard things are.
> 
> I also think you are assuming a lot about where services can be hosted and at which cost (labour, not hardware).
> 
It seems you’re assuming as much about me as you think I’m assuming about this whole thing...
> So, unless you are volunteering to take care of the whole infrastructure, I suggest taking the opinion of people that are working with it a but more seriously.
> 
Sorry, I appreciate your opinion, but it is still not “facts” or “data”. When you write “it will save *a lot* of maintenance”, I raise my eyebrows. I’ll take what you write seriously when it’ll be be phrased less qualitatively and more quantitatively, i.e. for instance I would ask less if you wrote “currently volunteers (Anton, Tanya, whoever) spends on average 5h a week to fix problem purely related to the *repositories* (not the video, not the Debian packages, etc.) and moving to an external host would save totally these 5h/week”.

— 
Mehdi


> However, I'd still trust github over anyone of us any day, to host our repositories. Any one of us could leave the community at any time, but github, as a company, with many employees and a successful business, will probably outlast any if us in our current employments.
> 
> From that point of view, the foundation would be better betting their money on a stable product than on individual volunteers. While it's cool that some people volunteer, you can't base such a critical system on it.
> 
> Cheers, 
> Renato
> 
> 
> On 19 Jul 2016 11:47 p.m., "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
> > On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:
> >
> > On 19 July 2016 at 23:16, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
> >>> In the past, we were hit by web spiders that ignored completely the
> >>> robots.txt file. Anton has made that better, but it can escalate if
> >>> the spider realise we blocked them. There are ways to work around, but
> >>> not without accidentally blocking innocent people (mostly in China).
> >>
> >> That’s not relevant: this is about the WWW server, it does not have to be related to the hosting the repos.
> >
> > No, this is about hosting the SVN server. The SVN view was disabled
> > for months this year before we could really see what was going on.
> 
> I don’t believe the online SVN viewer has to be on the server that hosts the repo that everyone access: the WWW server could mirror the SVN to provide local access to the viewer if needed (hence why I view this as unrelated to hosting source code).
> 
> >> Moving the SVN repo does not solve hosting videos, Debian packages, etc.
> >> I suspect most of the bandwidth does not come from `svn up` or `git pull`.
> >
> > They share the same bandwidth, and sometimes the same server. It is relevant.
> 
> Well, “they share the same bandwidth” is exactly what I mean by “conflating the issues”.
> They don’t *have to* share the same bandwidth. Hosting repos could be setup totally separated from hosting WWW.
> You need to account things properly.
> 
> > One thing making SVN slow was the amount of Debian packages being
> > downloaded form the same place.
> >
> >
> >> Like… proper hooks?
> >
> > If we can work around it, and it seems we can, this is not such a big issue.
> >
> >
> >> You’re again conflating svn/git and hosting “binaries and videos”. I don’t think we ever planned to host these on github?
> >
> > No, but they all share bandwidth. We moved videos to Youtube to
> > offload the bandwidth, and moving the code to GitHub shares the same
> > mindset.
> 
> It shares the same mindset *only* if the code itself is a significant bandwidth consumer, otherwise no it does not make sense.
> 
> >
> >
> >> Possibly, I don’t know, but that’s exactly why I asked for first hand data on the subject (i.e. Anton and/or Tanya) about hosting the git/SVN repos themselves, instead of hand-wavy “I believe” discussions.
> >
> > Bear in mind that I gave you facts (bandwidth problems, turned off SVN
> > services, constant breakdowns, expertise in handling traffic, backup
> > solutions).
> 
> And I consider many of the “facts” you gave to conflate other element than hosting the repository *alone*, which makes it hard to me to see them as relevant as-is.
> 
> >
> > I also made you aware that the human cost is not *just* Tanya and
> > Anton, but also me and everyone else that maintains buildbots,
> > external mirrors, etc. and it *is* larger than the hardware costs. You
> > just don't see it because we're all volunteers.
> >
> > Branding them as "hand-wavy I believe" is *not* appropriate.
> 
> I apologize if I hurt your feeling, but the reality is that I feel you’re conflating multiple things together that are not directly related to “moving the repository only”, and that does not help to be convincing. My use of “hand-wavy”, if that’s what bothered you, means really that (I’m not attaching any other value judgement to this expression as a non-native speaker, maybe it is not the right choice of word from a non-native speaker).
> 
> —
> Mehdi

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160719/a3fe7748/attachment.html>