[gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Christel Dahlskjaer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 570 bytes --]

It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
about the following addition to the Social Contract?

<heading>We will be run by the Development Community</>
Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow
ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation.


-- 
I remain, Sir, your most humble and obedient servant,
Christel - conventionally stuck in the 1920s


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Kelly]

Darn, there go Piotocorp's plans of buyout...
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 766 bytes --]

On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> about the following addition to the Social Contract?
>
> <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</>
> Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow
> ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation.

i dont see why this is required ?  ignoring the fact that the wording is way 
too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded 
rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Luca Barbato]

Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> about the following addition to the Social Contract?

Not necessary, if something like that happens would be easy fork away =P

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Christel Dahlskjaer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1002 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> > about the following addition to the Social Contract?
> >
> > <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</>
> > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow
> > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation.
> 
> i dont see why this is required ?  ignoring the fact that the wording is way 
> too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded 
> rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist

Supposedly >80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we
find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get
flooded? 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1476 bytes --]

On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> > > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> > > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> > > about the following addition to the Social Contract?
> > >
> > > <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</>
> > > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow
> > > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation.
> >
> > i dont see why this is required ?  ignoring the fact that the wording is
> > way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long
> > winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt
> > exist
>
> Supposedly >80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we
> find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get
> flooded?

and how does writing a vague rule into our Social Contract propose to help the 
situation ?  just because we have a rule that says our infrastructure needs 
to be spread out among sponsors doesnt mean sponsors are going to materialize 
out of nowhere to make this happen

our machines live where people have been so kind as to offer 
space/electricity/bandwidth/etc...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:54:33 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> i dont see why this is required ?  ignoring the fact that the wording
> is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to
> spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue
> that doesnt exist

Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would
be something like this:

Gentoo, for whatever reason, ends up relying upon $sponsor for, say,
two thirds of its hardware. $sponsor employs a Gentoo developer who has
certain political views that aren't in line with Gentoo policy. Said
developer uses his influence as an employee of $sponsor to get $sponsor
to say to the Council "either you change policy to say blah within a
month or we're going to stop sponsoring you".

Now, something like that, were it to happen, would put Gentoo in a very
tricky situation. The Council can't easily say no, since losing two
thirds of its hardware would effectively halt development. Equally,
however, it's not exactly a good idea for the Council to establish a
precedent of rushing through policy changes that most people don't want
because of outside pressure.

*shrug* I guess that's the intention behind the proposal, anyway. If it
is, I agree that Christel's wording isn't as clear as it could be...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > i dont see why this is required ?  ignoring the fact that the wording
> > is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to
> > spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue
> > that doesnt exist
>
> Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would
> be something like this:

blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > i dont see why this is required ?  ignoring the fact that the
> > > wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and
> > > people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking
> > > about an issue that doesnt exist
> >
> > Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address
> > would be something like this:
> 
> blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else

Hm? Like I said, it was a hypothetical situation. I'm not suggesting
that anything like that has ever happened, merely that Christel's idea
of protecting Gentoo from that kind of thing in the future isn't a bad
thing...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1126 bytes --]

On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > i dont see why this is required ?  ignoring the fact that the
> > > > wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and
> > > > people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking
> > > > about an issue that doesnt exist
> > >
> > > Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address
> > > would be something like this:
> >
> > blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else
>
> Hm? Like I said, it was a hypothetical situation. I'm not suggesting
> that anything like that has ever happened, merely that Christel's idea
> of protecting Gentoo from that kind of thing in the future isn't a bad
> thing...

well, while we're protecting Gentoo from hypothetical situations that dont 
exist now but could in the future, we should add a clause that bans collusion 
with Lucifer as that would of course give us a bad rep
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1168 bytes --]

Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: [Sun Mar 25 2007, 07:35:33AM CDT]
> Supposedly >80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we
> find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get
> flooded? 

Looking through
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/server-specs.xml,
that 80% number doesn't seem right.  Where's your number coming
from?

Now it is true that 100% of our CVS server (presumably our most critical
resource) is located in one place (Global Netoptex, it seems), but I
have a hard time seeing how that could be otherwise, given the nature of
CVS.  I assume that infra regularly backs up the repository to an
alternative site, so disaster there would be survivable.  *Shrug*  From
what I can tell, our resources aren't really all that localized.

Incidentally, the language of the proposed change would probably prevent
us from relying on freenode as our sole IRC host, since freenode would
certainly count as a single vendor.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1033 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>   
>> On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>     
>>> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> i dont see why this is required ?  ignoring the fact that the
>>>> wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and
>>>> people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking
>>>> about an issue that doesnt exist
>>>>         
>>> Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address
>>> would be something like this:
>>>       
>> blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else
>>     
>
> Hm? Like I said, it was a hypothetical situation. I'm not suggesting
> that anything like that has ever happened, merely that Christel's idea
> of protecting Gentoo from that kind of thing in the future isn't a bad
> thing...
>
>   

As a lowly user, I agree.  Gentoo should not put all its eggs in one basket.

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

-- 
www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1898 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Christel Dahlskjaer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1765 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 09:27 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> > > > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> > > > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> > > > about the following addition to the Social Contract?
> > > >
> > > > <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</>
> > > > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow
> > > > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation.
> > >
> > > i dont see why this is required ?  ignoring the fact that the wording is
> > > way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long
> > > winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt
> > > exist
> >
> > Supposedly >80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we
> > find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get
> > flooded?
> 
> and how does writing a vague rule into our Social Contract propose to help the 
> situation ?  just because we have a rule that says our infrastructure needs 
> to be spread out among sponsors doesnt mean sponsors are going to materialize 
> out of nowhere to make this happen
> 
> our machines live where people have been so kind as to offer 
> space/electricity/bandwidth/etc...

I was simply suggesting that perhaps we need to try make sure that when
we able to we try ensure that we aren't too reliant upon one single
fascility.  Perhaps bad wording.



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Luca Barbato]

Dale wrote:

> 
> As a lowly user, I agree.  Gentoo should not put all its eggs in one basket.
> 

Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit...

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Luca Barbato]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen?
> 
> * That Gentoo relicences everything under a proprietary licence

GPL-3 you mean?

> * That Gentoo colludes with Lucifer

Cough...

> * That Gentoo comes under pressure from a sponsor with an agenda
> 
> Remember that several archs rely upon hardware donations from sponsors.
> What would happen if some of those sponsors said "we'll stop giving you
> the kit you need unless you agree not to support $chinese_cloned_cpu"?

That either the former sponsor won't support you because you aren't
supporting him and the $chinese_cloned_cpu manufacturer will sponsor you
or you get something back from this sponsor so you can make up for the
missed opportunity with the other vendor.

It's pretty much that. Whoever provides the toys for us to play could
ask something back, if one of the 2 parties isn't happy you can find
others to play with...

Obviously you may have other reasons to help one of the two parties.

That proposal about the social contract won't change that.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Stephen Bennett]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:35:21 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit...

Just because there is a basket that can fit all our eggs should not
prevent us from looking, where possible, for other baskets that would
let us distribute them more evenly.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1215 bytes --]

On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen?

and which of the following do you think is most likely to happen ?

* Ridiculous scenario #1
* Ridiculous scenario #2
* Spin of recent events to look like a conspiracy

obviously the last one is most likely since the other two are clearly 
ridiculous ... perhaps we should have each dev out there contribute tuples of 
scenarios and then we can write up rules that clearly lay down the law for 
the most likely of each group

> Remember that several archs rely upon hardware donations from sponsors.
> What would happen if some of those sponsors said "we'll stop giving you
> the kit you need unless you agree not to support $chinese_cloned_cpu"?

i dont need to be reminded, i have plenty of hardware donations laying around 
me which i utilize quite often

we write up rules for things that are actual problems, not hypothetical 
scenarios that random people dream up

if you cant logically balance common sense, then you dont deserve to be a 
developer ... obviously you would tell sponsor who is attempting to blackmail 
you that they can blow it out their rectum
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Duncan]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> posted
200703251116.13901.vapier@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on  Sun, 25 Mar
2007 11:16:13 -0400:

> well, while we're protecting Gentoo from hypothetical situations that
> dont exist now but could in the future, we should add a clause that bans
> collusion with Lucifer as that would of course give us a bad rep

Umm... let's not go where this seems to be heading...

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such
paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification
like that?

A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't
like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved.

To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem
improbable, isn't such a bad idea.

On 3/25/07, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> posted
> 200703251116.13901.vapier@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on  Sun, 25 Mar
> 2007 11:16:13 -0400:
>
> > well, while we're protecting Gentoo from hypothetical situations that
> > dont exist now but could in the future, we should add a clause that bans
> > collusion with Lucifer as that would of course give us a bad rep
>
> Umm... let's not go where this seems to be heading...
>
> --
> Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
> and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
Ioannis Aslanidis

<deathwing00[at]gentoo.org> 0xB9B11F4E
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Alec Warner]

> I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such
> paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification
> like that?
>
> A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't
> like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved.
>
> To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem
> improbable, isn't such a bad idea.

At best, we can only make some sort of effort to meet it.  Enforcing
something like 'not relying on one vendor' requires basically either money
from us or good will from others.  It's not like we can co-locate our
machines whereever we want or use any software that we wish or use as much
bandwidth as we wish.

The OSL and GNi and Indiana State University have been kind enough to host
many of our machines.  I don't think anyone claims it's easy (except maybe
patrick) to find new hosting providers or new machines.  We have new
machines coming; I have no idea where they are being hosted.  I assume
Infra isn't dumb enough to put all our machines in one place, I trust them
to make intelligent choices about our Infrastructure, thats why they
exist.

-Alec

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1084 bytes --]

On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such
> paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification
> like that?
>
> A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't
> like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved.

it isnt a different topic because as pointed out, it's very easy to skew the 
meaning to apply to anything and then screw ourselves

there's also the matter that if some more sponsors were to drop us, we'd then 
have to worry about our infrastructure being "evenly" spaced out among the 
remaining sponsors ... and then we could run into situations where sponsors 
offered more resources and we were forced to say no because our social 
contract was too restrictive

considering the pita this adds to address an issue that doesnt exist, seems 
like a no brainer to me: dont do it

> To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem
> improbable, isn't such a bad idea.

and where exactly do you stop ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

On 3/25/07, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem
> > improbable, isn't such a bad idea.
>
> and where exactly do you stop ?
> -mike
>
>

That's a good question, but I am not appropriate to answer to that yet. :)


-- 
Ioannis Aslanidis

<deathwing00[at]gentoo.org> 0xB9B11F4E
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Steve Long]

Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> about the following addition to the Social Contract?
> 
> <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</>
> Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow
> ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation.
> 
Er personally I think it's a nice mission statement, but it doesn't have
much meaning, and consequently little place in a `Social Contract'. After
all, Gentoo _is_ run by the devs, and I don't actually see how that could
change. Any corporation would firstly be mad to try and take it over since
the devs wouldn't have it. They don't even accept the authority of people
they voted for ;) Additionally, the consequent negative publicity would be
a PR nightmare; imagine the blog entries and the malevolence they'd
unleash!

As for getting into a situation of over-reliance, that's a good stance to
take, as an objective- not a statement of fact. Again, I don't think the
Council would let it get to that. Maybe it would be useful as one of your
objectives tho'.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> about the following addition to the Social Contract?
>
> <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</>
> Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow
> ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation.
>
>
>   
As I understand it, Gentoo is a "tax-exempt foundation" registered in 
the state of New Mexico. As a result, there are legal restrictions on 
"sponsorship", etc. Before modifying the "Social Contract", I'd 
recommend consulting an attorney with expertise in such matters. The 
last thing Gentoo needs is major legal hassles.

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1249 bytes --]

On Sunday 25 March 2007, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> > about the following addition to the Social Contract?
> >
> > <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</>
> > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow
> > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation.
>
> As I understand it, Gentoo is a "tax-exempt foundation" registered in
> the state of New Mexico. As a result, there are legal restrictions on
> "sponsorship", etc. Before modifying the "Social Contract", I'd
> recommend consulting an attorney with expertise in such matters. The
> last thing Gentoo needs is major legal hassles.

your information is dated ... Gentoo is not a tax-exempt foundation 
specifically so that we dont have to worry about getting screwed when a 
single entity decided to donate a ton of cash ... in other words, most 
foundations choose to be a 501(c)(3) so that donaters can have tax write offs 
while Gentoo is a 501(c)(1)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 660 bytes --]

On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> about the following addition to the Social Contract?
>
> <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</>
> Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow
> ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation.

i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo 
Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Christel Dahlskjaer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1326 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> > about the following addition to the Social Contract?
> >
> > <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</>
> > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow
> > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation.
> 
> i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo 
> Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5

And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning
down or the GNi suffering flooding? :)

My point was simply that I think we would be wise to research whether
there is the possibility of spreading our critical infrastructure a bit
better so that in the event of an Act of God or suchlike we wouldn't
find ourselves losing everything to, say, water damage. 

I agree, adding a line to the social contract won't magically send our
servers across the world and into the homes^Wdatacenters of hundreds of
wonderful new sponsors. Would be nice if it did though!

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1161 bytes --]

On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo
> > Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5
>
> And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning
> down or the GNi suffering flooding? :)

it addresses ciaranm's conspiracy theory

> My point was simply that I think we would be wise to research whether
> there is the possibility of spreading our critical infrastructure a bit
> better so that in the event of an Act of God or suchlike we wouldn't
> find ourselves losing everything to, say, water damage.
>
> I agree, adding a line to the social contract won't magically send our
> servers across the world and into the homes^Wdatacenters of hundreds of
> wonderful new sponsors. Would be nice if it did though!

right ... addressing this specifically can really only be done via a 
suggestion (please try to spread our infrastructure around the world) and by 
then, might as well not bother ... plus, this is kind of overkill for the 
Social Contract i think ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 625 bytes --]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:59:41 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the
> > > Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5
> >
> > And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL
> > burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :)
> 
> it addresses ciaranm's conspiracy theory

Like I said, it was a purely hypothetical example. You're being awfully
touchy about this...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 743 bytes --]

On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the
> > > > Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5
> > >
> > > And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL
> > > burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :)
> >
> > it addresses ciaranm's conspiracy theory
>
> Like I said, it was a purely hypothetical example. You're being awfully
> touchy about this...

you're right, i get touchy when people throw bs onto the lists and simply 
waste developer time
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Catalin Zamfir Alexandru]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1469 bytes --]

On Sunday 25 March 2007 21:46, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> > > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> > > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> > > about the following addition to the Social Contract?
> > >
> > > <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</>
> > > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow
> > > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation.
> >
> > i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo
> > Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5
>
> And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning
> down or the GNi suffering flooding? :)
>
> My point was simply that I think we would be wise to research whether
> there is the possibility of spreading our critical infrastructure a bit
> better so that in the event of an Act of God or suchlike we wouldn't
> find ourselves losing everything to, say, water damage.
>
> I agree, adding a line to the social contract won't magically send our
> servers across the world and into the homes^Wdatacenters of hundreds of
> wonderful new sponsors. Would be nice if it did though!

For anyone, I can host a mirror for gentoo.org. Just contact me.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 748 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 11:32 +0000, Catalin Zamfir Alexandru wrote:
> > And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning
> > down or the GNi suffering flooding? :)

> For anyone, I can host a mirror for gentoo.org. Just contact me.

It isn't mirrors that we're discussing here.  What is being discussed is
the actual development support infrastructure, such as our repositories,
bug tracker, etc.

That being said, I don't know our current mirror needs, but
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/source_mirrors.xml probably has the answers
you are seeking.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1308 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 22:46 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
>   
>> And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning
>> down or the GNi suffering flooding? :)
>>     
>
> Well, we're on the second floor of the data center which has a quite
> large basement, which would likely absorb most of the water.  About the
> only feasible way for our stuff to get flooded is if the San Andreas
> finally gets the "big one" and the west coast of the US falls into the
> Pacific, in which case, we'll be worried about other issues, I'm sure.
>
> That being said, you're more than welcome to assist Infrastructure (and
> the Foundation) in finding new hosting locations as well as the manpower
> to bring new services up in those locations or moving existing services.
> Doing moves like this is a bunch of work, and not something I feel we
> should be "dumping" on the Infrastructure team.
>
>   

Can I assume this building has indoor plumbing?  It can be on the top
floor and still get flooded.  I saw a house once that the hot water
heater busted and water was about a foot deep and was coming out the walls.

More than one way to "flood" a building.  :/

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

-- 
www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967

Copy n paste then remove the -remove-me- part.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1892 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Richard Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2188 bytes --]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:47:30 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the
> Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5
> -mike

> Gentoo is independent

> Gentoo will never be reigned by a company nor be dictated by an
> organisation. 

Hi vapier, thanks for pointing this out. Am I wrong to assume from your
responses in this thread to ciaranm's "hypothetical" case that the
current council have not implemented any policy at the instruction of an
external company or organisation? Or under the threat of the withdrawal
of services that company/organisation provides to us?

I ask because when I was concerned to read this conversation in
#gentoo-council:

2007-03-15 15:15 <@wolf31o2|mobile> we're entrusted by certain outside
parties to not disclose things that are spoken to us in confidence
2007-03-15 15:18 < tove> wolf31o2|mobile: how are outside parties
involved in "our" coc? i don't understand this. can you please
elaborate on it?
2007-03-15 15:19 <@wolf31o2|mobile> tove: no, I cannot elaborate, nor
do I care to... just realize that Gentoo has responsibilities to
outside parties that provide services and goods to Gentoo... we
have relationships that we would like to maintain... and that's about
all I can say (or have time to say... I am at work)

I certainly inferred that the council had been told do "something" or
"outside parties that provide services and goods to Gentoo" would cease
to "maintain" that relationship. While there is some ambiguity in what
wolf31o2 said, it certainly doesn't read to me that this is a preemptive
measure, especially as the first line references already having been
told something in confidence.

I admit I haven't asked wolf31o2 about this, but then he implied he was
forbidden from discussing it further. Perhaps you have not been so
constrained by an outside organisation?

I'm unsure of what the procedure is for quoting irclogs in a mail is
really, but you'll find about 5 minutes either side of that conversation
here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~rbrown/gentoo-council.log

Regards,

-- 
Richard Brown

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2826 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 16:39 +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
> Hi vapier, thanks for pointing this out. Am I wrong to assume from your
> responses in this thread to ciaranm's "hypothetical" case that the
> current council have not implemented any policy at the instruction of an
> external company or organisation? Or under the threat of the withdrawal
> of services that company/organisation provides to us?

We have not implemented any policy at the instruction of anyone.

We have not implemented any policy under the threat of removal of
services.

> I certainly inferred that the council had been told do "something" or
> "outside parties that provide services and goods to Gentoo" would cease
> to "maintain" that relationship. While there is some ambiguity in what
> wolf31o2 said, it certainly doesn't read to me that this is a preemptive
> measure, especially as the first line references already having been
> told something in confidence.

There was a lot of ambiguity, and it was done on purpose.  Nearly every
one of our sponsors have mentioned disapproval in the constant bad press
Gentoo has been getting.  Pretty much anything else they said was in
confidence, but at no point did anyone claim that any policy should be
made/updated/whatever or some action would/wouldn't be taken.  Instead,
the Council decided to take action *on our own* based on what we
perceived to be a possible threat to our continued valued relationships
with *all* of our sponsors.

Again, nobody asked us to do *anything* and nobody made any threats of
any kind.  This was *entirely* a preemptive measure.  It was actually
done more at the counsel of some professional PR people which we have
been speaking with about our image.  This person's advice was to move on
these perceived issues quickly and decisively, which is exactly what we
did.

> I admit I haven't asked wolf31o2 about this, but then he implied he was
> forbidden from discussing it further. Perhaps you have not been so
> constrained by an outside organisation?

Then you probably should have talked to me, huh?  If something was
spoken in confidence to the Council, it would mean all of us.

Quite frankly, if you're going to try to use something that I said as
some form of "proof" of something and it is ambiguous, you could at
least have the courtesy to contact me.

There's no conspiracy.  Nobody told us to do anything, other than the PR
person, whose advice was requested by us.  Anything else is bullshit or
conjecture.  Now, can we get on to our regularly scheduled development
and leave this non-development banter where it is more appropriate?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 365 bytes --]

On Monday 26 March 2007, Catalin Zamfir Alexandru wrote:
> For anyone, I can host a mirror for gentoo.org. Just contact me.

we're not worried about mirrors, we're worried about the core infrastructure 
which really cant be mirrored

if you're offering to host a web node mirror though, please open a bug on 
bugzilla for our mirror admins to tracke
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2032 bytes --]

On Monday 26 March 2007, Dale wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 22:46 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> >> And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning
> >> down or the GNi suffering flooding? :)
> >
> > Well, we're on the second floor of the data center which has a quite
> > large basement, which would likely absorb most of the water.  About the
> > only feasible way for our stuff to get flooded is if the San Andreas
> > finally gets the "big one" and the west coast of the US falls into the
> > Pacific, in which case, we'll be worried about other issues, I'm sure.
> >
> > That being said, you're more than welcome to assist Infrastructure (and
> > the Foundation) in finding new hosting locations as well as the manpower
> > to bring new services up in those locations or moving existing services.
> > Doing moves like this is a bunch of work, and not something I feel we
> > should be "dumping" on the Infrastructure team.
>
> Can I assume this building has indoor plumbing?  It can be on the top
> floor and still get flooded.  I saw a house once that the hot water
> heater busted and water was about a foot deep and was coming out the walls.
>
> More than one way to "flood" a building.  :/

Actually the situation is not that hypothetical. Some years ago the datacenter 
of the University of Twente (The Netherlands) was set to fire by an angry 
systems administrator. The building housed among other infrastructure vital 
to the university also some machines of great importance to the debian 
project. Due to a combined effort of suppliers, the university staff and the 
fact that they had a new datacenter that happened to be about to open, most 
things were up an running again in a few days. The thing I'm worried about 
most is insurrance. I trust that infra has backups of the important things 
like our repositories.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Ned Ludd]

On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 00:22 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Monday 26 March 2007, Dale wrote:
> > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 22:46 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > >> And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning
> > >> down or the GNi suffering flooding? :)
> > >
> > > Well, we're on the second floor of the data center which has a quite
> > > large basement, which would likely absorb most of the water.  About the
> > > only feasible way for our stuff to get flooded is if the San Andreas
> > > finally gets the "big one" and the west coast of the US falls into the
> > > Pacific, in which case, we'll be worried about other issues, I'm sure.
> > >
> > > That being said, you're more than welcome to assist Infrastructure (and
> > > the Foundation) in finding new hosting locations as well as the manpower
> > > to bring new services up in those locations or moving existing services.
> > > Doing moves like this is a bunch of work, and not something I feel we
> > > should be "dumping" on the Infrastructure team.
> >
> > Can I assume this building has indoor plumbing?  It can be on the top
> > floor and still get flooded.  I saw a house once that the hot water
> > heater busted and water was about a foot deep and was coming out the walls.
> >
> > More than one way to "flood" a building.  :/
> 
> Actually the situation is not that hypothetical. Some years ago the datacenter 
> of the University of Twente (The Netherlands) was set to fire by an angry 
> systems administrator. The building housed among other infrastructure vital 
> to the university also some machines of great importance to the debian 
> project. Due to a combined effort of suppliers, the university staff and the 
> fact that they had a new datacenter that happened to be about to open, most 
> things were up an running again in a few days. 


> The thing I'm worried about 
> most is insurrance. I trust that infra has backups of the important things 
> like our repositories.

The hosting Gentoo gets from GNi is a world class service in some of 
the best data centers in the world. Everything important gets backed 
up nightly from one data center to another. As GNi/365 Main move into 
more data centers world wide chances are Gentoo will be moving into
those additionally as well.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[bret curtis]

Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Monday 26 March 2007, Dale wrote:
>   
> [snip]

> Actually the situation is not that hypothetical. Some years ago the datacenter 
> of the University of Twente (The Netherlands) was set to fire by an angry 
> systems administrator. The building housed among other infrastructure vital 
> to the university also some machines of great importance to the debian 
> project. Due to a combined effort of suppliers, the university staff and the 
> fact that they had a new datacenter that happened to be about to open, most 
> things were up an running again in a few days. The thing I'm worried about 
> most is insurrance. I trust that infra has backups of the important things 
> like our repositories.
>
> Paul
>
>   
Only wimps use tape backup: *real **men* just upload their important 
stuff on *ftp*, and let the rest of the world mirror it. -- LT :1996

I have no doubt that Gentoo as a distribution can bounce back from 
something catastrophic mostly because of how portage makes a snapshot of 
the tree on everyone's Gentoo distribution at any point in time and same 
applies to repositories and people that check them out. More than likely 
we will loose some history and time but it wouldn't be a total lose. It 
definently won't all go up in a puff of smoke.

That aside, does Gentoo have a disaster mitigation and recovery plan and 
is it published? A cursory glance on google shows none available. I 
haven't bothered do my own research, so by all means flame on, but does 
the pont of contact for the domain name still alive?

All I have is Scottsdale Arizona and a phone number from whois, for all 
I know it could be drobbins. :P

-- bret curtis
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Gentoo infra backups (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract)

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 709 bytes --]

On Monday 26 March 2007, bret curtis wrote:
> Only wimps use tape backup: *real **men* just upload their important
> stuff on *ftp*, and let the rest of the world mirror it. -- LT :1996

actually, i wonder if this would be useful ... we set up a master backup 
server where we post raw svn/cvs/etc... stuff and then allow people to setup 
mirrors of it ...

> That aside, does Gentoo have a disaster mitigation and recovery plan and
> is it published? A cursory glance on google shows none available. I
> haven't bothered do my own research, so by all means flame on, but does
> the pont of contact for the domain name still alive?

if it were published, it'd be on the internal dev wiki
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 628 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 26 March 2007, bret curtis wrote:
>> Only wimps use tape backup: *real **men* just upload their important
>> stuff on *ftp*, and let the rest of the world mirror it. -- LT :1996
> 
> actually, i wonder if this would be useful ... we set up a master backup 
> server where we post raw svn/cvs/etc... stuff and then allow people to setup 
> mirrors of it ...

If we ever move to a distributed SCM, this will be solved by anyone with
a checkout. It may be worth putting the time into fixing a DSCM to do
what we need rather than setting up other things like this.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Christopher Sawtell]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 26 March 2007, bret curtis wrote:
> >> Only wimps use tape backup: *real **men* just upload their important
> >> stuff on *ftp*, and let the rest of the world mirror it. -- LT :1996
> >
> > actually, i wonder if this would be useful ... we set up a master backup
> > server where we post raw svn/cvs/etc... stuff and then allow people to
> > setup mirrors of it ...
>
> If we ever move to a distributed SCM, this will be solved by anyone with
> a checkout. It may be worth putting the time into fixing a DSCM to do
> what we need rather than setting up other things like this.

Absolutely!

I believe Monotone ( as well as many others ) would do what is wanted.

* dev-util/monotone
     Available versions:  (1)  0.29 (~)0.32 (~)0.33
     Homepage:            http://monotone.ca
     Description:         Monotone Distributed Version Control System

--
CS
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Richard Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3244 bytes --]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:12:17 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> We have not implemented any policy at the instruction of anyone.
> 
> We have not implemented any policy under the threat of removal of
> services.

I'm pleased to hear that. To be honest I assumed that was exactly what
had happened, as it would reasonably explain the council's panicked
response.  Being a pragmatist it would seem that obeying a sponsor in
that situation would be the only option available to the council in the
short term.

> There was a lot of ambiguity, and it was done on purpose.  Nearly
> every one of our sponsors have mentioned disapproval in the constant
> bad press Gentoo has been getting.  Pretty much anything else they
> said was in confidence, but at no point did anyone claim that any
> policy should be made/updated/whatever or some action would/wouldn't
> be taken.  Instead, the Council decided to take action *on our own*
> based on what we perceived to be a possible threat to our continued
> valued relationships with *all* of our sponsors.

I don't really want to dissect your email line by line, but I feel I 
would struggle to think of anything a sponsor could say to the
council that they felt they couldn't say to the rest of us. I'm happy 
however to be kept in my current state of ignorance, as it certainly
would not be appropriate for any council member to reveal information or
documents given to them, in confidence, to anyone else.

> Then you probably should have talked to me, huh?  If something was
> spoken in confidence to the Council, it would mean all of us.
>
> Quite frankly, if you're going to try to use something that I said as
> some form of "proof" of something and it is ambiguous, you could at
> least have the courtesy to contact me.

Well, the last time I spoke to you was about your behaviour towards
jaervosz, and you said I "was reading too much into" what you had
written, that you didn't represent the council, posting on gentoo-dev
made you sick, that my responses to you were partly responsible for
fostering a "culture of mistrust and hostility within gentoo" and that
you were "wasting ... everyone's time trying to ... rectify [your]
shortcomings." And then you announced that you were not going to post on
that thread anymore.  Do you think that made you approachable, by me, 
on this matter?
 
> There's no conspiracy.  Nobody told us to do anything, other than the
> PR person, whose advice was requested by us.  Anything else is
> bullshit or conjecture.  

While I still don't understand your reasoning in making an intentionally
ambiguous statement about the council's motives, I also don't really
care to understand. Assuming you are speaking on behalf of the
council in this instance, I'm happy to accept that your ongoing
implementation of the CoC is an honest mistake, and not one forced upon
you as the result of some ultimatum, as I inferred from your
conversation with tove.

Your reply has certainly allayed the specific fears I expressed in my
previous email, but it looks like you haven't convinced everyone yet:
 http://tsunam.org/2007/03/26/destoying-things-again/.

Regards,

-- 
Richard Brown

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Gentoo infra backups (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract)

[Ned Ludd]

On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 19:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 26 March 2007, bret curtis wrote:
> > Only wimps use tape backup: *real **men* just upload their important
> > stuff on *ftp*, and let the rest of the world mirror it. -- LT :1996

> actually, i wonder if this would be useful ... we set up a master backup 
> server where we post raw svn/cvs/etc... stuff and then allow people to setup 
> mirrors of it ...

Mike,
We can't do a full raw mirror. There are restricted things in CVS. A
raw copy of the anonymous cvs is about as close as we could do to this.
I personally see little to no benefit in the additional overhead in
doing that. But if you can make a case to say robbat2 and pylon for why
this would be useful to our community then I'm sure we could open up a
rsync of the raw anoncvs mirror.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 198 bytes --]

On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> I believe Monotone ( as well as many others ) would do what is wanted.

i simply cannot fully express myself at how terrible monotone is
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

[Ned Ludd]

On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 10:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote: 
> > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 22:46 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> >   
> > > And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning
> > > down or the GNi suffering flooding? :)
> > >     
> > 
> > Well, we're on the second floor of the data center which has a quite
> > large basement, which would likely absorb most of the water.  About the
> > only feasible way for our stuff to get flooded is if the San Andreas
> > finally gets the "big one" and the west coast of the US falls into the
> > Pacific, in which case, we'll be worried about other issues, I'm sure.

3rd floor in C.06 actually.

> > That being said, you're more than welcome to assist Infrastructure (and
> > the Foundation) in finding new hosting locations as well as the manpower
> > to bring new services up in those locations or moving existing services.
> > Doing moves like this is a bunch of work, and not something I feel we
> > should be "dumping" on the Infrastructure team.
> > 
> >   
> 

> Can I assume this building has indoor plumbing?  It can be on the top
> floor and still get flooded.  I saw a house once that the hot water
> heater busted and water was about a foot deep and was coming out the
> walls.
> 
> More than one way to "flood" a building.  :/

Flooding/burning etc are not likely to happen. See page two of the spec
for more details.

http://www.365main.com/images/365_Main_San_Francisco_CA.pdf


-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[bret curtis]

Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 19:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>   
>> On Monday 26 March 2007, bret curtis wrote:
>>     
>>> Only wimps use tape backup: *real **men* just upload their important
>>> stuff on *ftp*, and let the rest of the world mirror it. -- LT :1996
> Mike,
> We can't do a full raw mirror. There are restricted things in CVS. A
> raw copy of the anonymous cvs is about as close as we could do to this.
> I personally see little to no benefit in the additional overhead in
> doing that. But if you can make a case to say robbat2 and pylon for why
> this would be useful to our community then I'm sure we could open up a
> rsync of the raw anoncvs mirror.
Aside from username and passwords, is Gentoo not so transparent that we 
can't do a master dump of our collective work and allow it to be 
mirrored in some fashion by people willing to do so?

Perhaps an official Gentoo project snapshot isn't such bad idea, chalk 
full of data integrity checks that people can download, digest, dissect 
if they really want to.

Mirror/snapshot/dump and letting others mirror it is ultimately the best 
intellectual property insurance when the primary objective is redundancy 
and speed of recovery. Rebuilding infrastructure is the hard part, I'm 
still waiting to see who ultimately has control of the gentoo.org domain. :P


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1141 bytes --]

On Tuesday 27 March 2007, bret curtis wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 19:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Monday 26 March 2007, bret curtis wrote:
> >>> Only wimps use tape backup: *real **men* just upload their important
> >>> stuff on *ftp*, and let the rest of the world mirror it. -- LT :1996
> >
> > We can't do a full raw mirror. There are restricted things in CVS. A
> > raw copy of the anonymous cvs is about as close as we could do to this.
> > I personally see little to no benefit in the additional overhead in
> > doing that. But if you can make a case to say robbat2 and pylon for why
> > this would be useful to our community then I'm sure we could open up a
> > rsync of the raw anoncvs mirror.
>
> Aside from username and passwords, is Gentoo not so transparent that we
> can't do a master dump of our collective work and allow it to be
> mirrored in some fashion by people willing to do so?

that's pretty much what he's referring to ... at the moment, we store things 
like full contact information about each dev in cvs and that isnt exported to 
the anonymous server
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Lars Weiler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1348 bytes --]

* Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> [07/03/26 19:44 -0400]:
> On Monday 26 March 2007, bret curtis wrote:
> > Only wimps use tape backup: *real **men* just upload their important
> > stuff on *ftp*, and let the rest of the world mirror it. -- LT :1996
> 
> actually, i wonder if this would be useful ... we set up a master backup 
> server where we post raw svn/cvs/etc... stuff and then allow people to setup 
> mirrors of it ...

Ehm.  No.  We can not do that with every repository on our
servers.  But the biggest part (say 98% off all bytes) on
CVS/SVN can be public.

> > That aside, does Gentoo have a disaster mitigation and recovery plan and
> > is it published? A cursory glance on google shows none available. I
> > haven't bothered do my own research, so by all means flame on, but does
> > the pont of contact for the domain name still alive?
> 
> if it were published, it'd be on the internal dev wiki

Sure? ;-)

Well, we have daily full backups at two different locations
in the US.  So, when everything goes bad, we have to recover
one day on the basis of our 30-min-rsync-cycles.

Regards, Lars

-- 
Lars Weiler  <pylon@gentoo.org>  +49-171-1963258
Instant Messaging     : pylon@jabber.ccc.de
Gentoo Linux PowerPC  : Strategical Lead and Release Engineer
Gentoo Infrastructure : CVS Administrator

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Christopher Sawtell]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> > I believe Monotone ( as well as many others ) would do what is wanted.
>
> i simply cannot fully express myself at how terrible monotone is

Care to suggest a different DSCM system?

--
CS



-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Michael Krelin]

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
>>> I believe Monotone ( as well as many others ) would do what is wanted.
>> i simply cannot fully express myself at how terrible monotone is
> 
> Care to suggest a different DSCM system?

git?

Love,
H
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 579 bytes --]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:45:46 +1200
Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> > > I believe Monotone ( as well as many others ) would do what is
> > > wanted.
> >
> > i simply cannot fully express myself at how terrible monotone is
> 
> Care to suggest a different DSCM system?

Care to suggest why the D part is necessary or even useful? It seems
like a rather extravagant and costly solution to solve one small
problem...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Christopher Sawtell]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:45:46 +1200
>
> Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> > > > I believe Monotone ( as well as many others ) would do what is
> > > > wanted.
> > >
> > > i simply cannot fully express myself at how terrible monotone is
> >
> > Care to suggest a different DSCM system?
>
> Care to suggest why the D part is necessary or even useful? It seems
> like a rather extravagant and costly solution to solve one small
> problem...

To distribute the data set around the world.

--
CS
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 522 bytes --]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:38:19 +1200
Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > > Care to suggest a different DSCM system?
> >
> > Care to suggest why the D part is necessary or even useful? It seems
> > like a rather extravagant and costly solution to solve one small
> > problem...
> 
> To distribute the data set around the world.

There are plenty of ways of doing that, most of which don't involve the
huge cost of having to use a horrible version control system...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Luca Barbato]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
> There are plenty of ways of doing that, most of which don't involve the
> huge cost of having to use a horrible version control system...
> 

So far git isn't that bad, I haven't tested monotone that much nor
mercurial.

Probably we could get some help from upstream if we want to move to it.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Michael Krelin]

> So far git isn't that bad, I haven't tested monotone that much nor
> mercurial.
> 
> Probably we could get some help from upstream if we want to move to it.

I think, the nature of most gentoo repositories isn't distributed
enough. Switching to subversion should be enough to enable distributed
development using, for instance, `git svn`. And would avoid a lot of
confusion as well.

Love,
H
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Christopher Sawtell]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:38:19 +1200
>
> Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > > > Care to suggest a different DSCM system?
> > >
> > > Care to suggest why the D part is necessary or even useful? It seems
> > > like a rather extravagant and costly solution to solve one small
> > > problem...
> >
> > To distribute the data set around the world.
>
> There are plenty of ways of doing that, most of which don't involve the
> huge cost of having to use a horrible version control system...

I wonder if you would be so kind as to expand on the meaning of your use 
of "cost" and "horrible" in the above sentence?

--
CS

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 635 bytes --]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:30:56 +1200
Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > There are plenty of ways of doing that, most of which don't involve
> > the huge cost of having to use a horrible version control system...
> 
> I wonder if you would be so kind as to expand on the meaning of your
> use of "cost" and "horrible" in the above sentence?

Distributed systems don't work well with Gentoo's current development
model, which is entirely centralised. There are also issues of
performance and stability, both of which were discussed at length the
last time this topic came up...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 306 bytes --]

On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> both of which were discussed at length the
> last time this topic came up...

yeah, i think before anyone tries to start contributing to a dscm thread, they 
search the archives and read the extensive discussions that have happened 
already
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:30:56 +1200
> Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>> There are plenty of ways of doing that, most of which don't involve
>>> the huge cost of having to use a horrible version control system...
>> I wonder if you would be so kind as to expand on the meaning of your
>> use of "cost" and "horrible" in the above sentence?
> 
> Distributed systems don't work well with Gentoo's current development
> model, which is entirely centralised.

Our current development model is restricted by our current SCM. Having code managament in local
copies seems to me an essential feature. This goes double for people who don't have commit access to
 our repositories.

> There are also issues of
> performance and stability, both of which were discussed at length the
> last time this topic came up...

I thought performance was one of the reasons for moving away from CVS. Anyway.

I've been reading some SCM comparisons and there are three systems which I think are the best
candidates for moving to: git, mercurial and darcs. These are the three fastest and most capable
SCMs. Git is still the fastest but mercurial and darcs are not far behind. Darcs has the best
merging capabilities probably due to its being based on a solid mathematical foundation; patch algebra.

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGCkOvp/VmCx0OL2wRAi6mAJ91JvMdHOa8m55bXaKBs8n3T9ZThgCfaqcW
K86k6wGAFCIVFJoxg48SS3s=
=CCx2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

SCM choices (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups)

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1865 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 12:30 +0200, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> I've been reading some SCM comparisons and there are three systems which I think are the best
> candidates for moving to: git, mercurial and darcs. These are the three fastest and most capable
> SCMs. Git is still the fastest but mercurial and darcs are not far behind. Darcs has the best
> merging capabilities probably due to its being based on a solid mathematical foundation; patch algebra.

Please, everyone, go back and read the actual *facts* that were
discovered using copies of *our* repositories before going around using
data from outside sources.  Unless you're willing to spend the time to
*prove* that some other SCM is faster/better than CVS and actually works
*with our repositories* properly, then there's no point in discussing
this *yet again* on the list.

Remember that when this was investigated last summer, *none* of the
alternate SCMs were really viable for us, with Subversion being the
least likely to suck.  I'm sure things might have changed a bit since
then, but one of the major things we noticed from the study was that our
findings on *our* data set didn't really match the FUD/evangelism that
was being spouted by proponents of other SCMs.

Picking a SCM is *not* a religious or political move.  It should be done
entirely for technical reasons.

If you want to bring this back up, I ask you to have the data to back it
up.  Otherwise, we really don't need to discuss it since everybody is
going to have differing opinions based on nothing but anecdotes and here
say.  We get enough of that around here.  Let's try to stick to facts
and reproducible data.

Thanks, 

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Michael Krelin]

> 
> I've been reading some SCM comparisons and there are three systems which I think are the best
> candidates for moving to: git, mercurial and darcs. These are the three fastest and most capable
> SCMs. Git is still the fastest but mercurial and darcs are not far behind. Darcs has the best
> merging capabilities probably due to its being based on a solid mathematical foundation; patch algebra.
> 

Reading comparisons is one thing and using is the other. But the thing
is, gentoo ends up with central repository, anyway. Provided the
repository is less ancient than CVS (which is basically subversion),
distributed users can branch it without having to have commit access.
This hybrid model makes much more sense to me than forcing everyone to
use DSCM. I have exercised the approach on overlay before I was granted
commit access and now continue to work the same way pushing my branches
back to svn. I think this possibility totally invalidates the very idea
of DSCM importance.


Love,
H
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: SCM choices (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups)

[Kevin F. Quinn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1770 bytes --]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:58:59 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Please, everyone, go back and read the actual *facts* that were
> discovered using copies of *our* repositories before going around
> using data from outside sources.

Alec Warner's test results are here, of course:

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/cvs-migration.xml

FI on gentoo-x86 we're doing about 10,000 commits a month (from 100 to
500 commits a day), according to my #gentoo-commits logs.  (Assuming
the SVN revision is a 32-bit number, it'll take about 1000 years to
saturate).

Personally I'm a fan of SVN over CVS, but that's from a client
perspective not the server.  It would be interesting to find out why
SVN consumes double the bandwidth to checkout a full tree.  It would
also be interesting to find out why the server disk usage is 4x that of
CVS (and what difference the choice of back-end makes).

FWIW the things I like in SVN, in order of importance to me are:
 1) ability to do diffs off-line
 2) maintains history when copying, moving etc (e.g. 'svn log' of CPV-r2
    traces the history back through the point at which it was copied
    from CPV-r1)
 3) command line is largely the same as CVS (which avoids confusion
    when moving between CVS and SVN repositories)

Alec - any chance you could flesh out exactly what tests you did?  I
would have expected that the update-diff-commit cycle that we (well,
repoman) typically do would be more efficient on SVN than CVS, in
terms of the amount of data transferred between the client and server
(svn client sends diffs, cvs client sends whole files, and the diff
operation in the repoman cycle would be local in svn).

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: SCM choices (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo infra backups)

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 572 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 15:23 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> SVN consumes double the bandwidth to checkout a full tree.  It would
> also be interesting to find out why the server disk usage is 4x that of
> CVS (and what difference the choice of back-end makes).

I would bet that the file-system also makes some difference, along with
the back-end choices.  Unless Alec took this into consideration.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Steve Long]

Michael Krelin wrote:
> Reading comparisons is one thing and using is the other. But the thing
> is, gentoo ends up with central repository, anyway. Provided the
> repository is less ancient than CVS (which is basically subversion),
> distributed users can branch it without having to have commit access.
> This hybrid model makes much more sense to me than forcing everyone to
> use DSCM. I have exercised the approach on overlay before I was granted
> commit access and now continue to work the same way pushing my branches
> back to svn. I think this possibility totally invalidates the very idea
> of DSCM importance.
> 
This makes a lot of sense. Since there are people who offer facilities,
perhaps a good answer is "Please set up a mirror of our anoncvs as this
will enable quicker disaster recovery." That would give redundancy for 98%
of the material, as noted, and is easily done.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Gentoo infra backups

[Michael Krelin]

>> Reading comparisons is one thing and using is the other. But the thing
>> is, gentoo ends up with central repository, anyway. Provided the
>> repository is less ancient than CVS (which is basically subversion),
>> distributed users can branch it without having to have commit access.
>> This hybrid model makes much more sense to me than forcing everyone to
>> use DSCM. I have exercised the approach on overlay before I was granted
>> commit access and now continue to work the same way pushing my branches
>> back to svn. I think this possibility totally invalidates the very idea
>> of DSCM importance.
>>
> This makes a lot of sense. Since there are people who offer facilities,
> perhaps a good answer is "Please set up a mirror of our anoncvs as this
> will enable quicker disaster recovery." That would give redundancy for 98%
> of the material, as noted, and is easily done.

Just a few notes. I wasn't even talking of mirroring stuff, but if we
mention that, it worth noting that there has to be a central repository
otherwise it's not clear what to mirror ;-) Also, unfortunately, the
scenario described, iirc, doesn't work for CVS, but works well for
subversion, which seems to be the most viable alternative to CVS and in
my opinion suits the nature of tree very well, because of preserving
history across copies (that is, e.g. `svn cp ebuild-0.ebuild
ebuild-1.ebuild`).


Love,
H
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:58:59 -0400
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Please, everyone, go back and read the actual *facts* that were
>> discovered using copies of *our* repositories before going around
>> using data from outside sources.
> 
> Alec Warner's test results are here, of course:
> 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/cvs-migration.xml

I've looked at this just now and in the past and at the last thread in which this was discussed
(http://marc.info/?t=116855132300001&r=1&w=2) and
http://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/projects/soc/glep-0052.txt and there doesn't seem to be any hard data
which can be used to base an informed decision on. Things like git not supporting partial syncs were
brought up as being too painful for non-broadband users and disagreed with
(http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=116918412629635&w=2). You can find some more issues like this in
the entire thread. Furthermore only git and svn (svk) seem to have been investigated and it is
unclear which versions were used. If you believe, like me, that non-distributed SCMs are broken,
then this leaves only git (and svk but "It is certainly not the optimal distributed VCS solution.").

These were the reasons I decided to look and see what other infos could be had on the internet. Of
course it is hard to come up with good measures of performance and I've certainly found very little
hard data.

So in light of all that I don't think it is wasteful to restart this discussion.

Of course not everyone is yet convinced that non-distributed SCMs are broken, so perhaps it would be
good if I ask the following question _here_ instead of privately.


Chris,
if I am to continue my plan of producing frequent releases of minimal amd64 install cd, then it
would probably help if I can use some versioning control and you might be interested in having easy
access to any changes I make. How can we achieve both? I believe the stuff I'm interested in is in
some CVS repository. As I see it I have the following options:

1) get commit access to the repository and start a branch in there. Merging may not be too hard, I
don't really know. However CVS commit access is not something that is given lightly. It would vice
versa also mean that you would have commit access to my stuff, which I might not like.

2) file bugs with patches attached. But maybe you just want to forget about releases until 2007.1
comes along once 2007.0 is finished.

3) fork the code or convert the repository into a repo of my own. Even if I choose to use the same
kind of repo (CVS in this case), then how hard will merging be? Again, this goes both ways.

I hope I missed something here, but of the three the third looks the most appealing and likely with
me forking into darcs probably. I don't think this issue would be here if the code were in a
distributed SCM, but maybe by the time 2007.1 is due I will have amassed enough interesting changes
that it is easier for you to then just clone my distributed repo ;P.


So can we please discuss what distributed SCM is best for the tree or likely to be in the future and
what hard data obtained with what tests should be gathered to rank SCMs and what feature differences
there are and how much we should care about them?

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGDi9op/VmCx0OL2wRArS/AKDGGC74l6xMFStjt3wS6PcOlTj/9wCdGwuR
8evRaXm3V8G7WWfUaC9luNM=
=XPYE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Alec Warner]

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:58:59 -0400
>> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Please, everyone, go back and read the actual *facts* that were
>>> discovered using copies of *our* repositories before going around
>>> using data from outside sources.
>>
>> Alec Warner's test results are here, of course:
>>
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/cvs-migration.xml
>
> So can we please discuss what distributed SCM is best for the tree or
> likely to be in the future and
> what hard data obtained with what tests should be gathered to rank SCMs
> and what feature differences
> there are and how much we should care about them?
>
> Marijn

I think the main point of this discussion is you can discuss all you like
but no one is going to switch because of a discussion.  If you want to
convert the tree to something else; get two boxes, do the conversion, get
some data and then present it.  If darcs has reasonable benifits over the
current system then bonus; you would have data to back up any other points
you have in a discussion to switch.  But without that data you have
nothing.  Our tree is not a 'normal' dataset for many of these systems.

Here are some stats from the 6th of last April.

Total CVS Files:            234672
Total CVS Revisions:       1309603
CVS Repos Size in KB:       783590
First Revision Date:    Fri Jul 28 00:35:42 2000
Last Revision Date:     Thu Apr  6 01:02:36 2006

We do around 10k revisions a month; so add another 120000 revisions
(roughly) to that count to get to this year.

-Alec

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5176 bytes --]

On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 11:52 +0200, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> So in light of all that I don't think it is wasteful to restart this discussion.

I do.

Want to bring it back up?  Go perform some tests and report back with
some data if you feel prior efforts weren't done properly or
reproducible.  My *entire* point was that *discussion* of this issue is
worthless compared to numbers and data.  I see no need to hear 300+
people tell everyone else their *opinion* on what they *think* is
better.  Seeing some actual data, though, should be definitely
encouraged.

> 1) get commit access to the repository and start a branch in there. Merging may not be too hard, I
> don't really know. However CVS commit access is not something that is given lightly. It would vice
> versa also mean that you would have commit access to my stuff, which I might not like.

Release Engineering has its own space for officially-released and
in-progress media.  Your stuff wouldn't really fall under that category,
so there's no need for you to have commit access to the repository.
Release Engineering holds final say on all changes and they need to go
through Release Engineering for testing before they will be accepted.
This is how all of our changes work and it's worked pretty well for us.

> 2) file bugs with patches attached. But maybe you just want to forget about releases until 2007.1
> comes along once 2007.0 is finished.

You are correct.  Release Engineering is not concerned with the interim
state of the tree, and therefore has no need for constantly updating the
spec files.  We focus our attention on the release snapshots and make
changes based on said snapshot, not on the current state of the tree.
We all have better things we would like to do than constantly update
spec files.  Now, if you're talking about working with Release
Engineering during release times, that would be grand, but anything
off-cycle wouldn't be of much interest for us.  Also, remember that
there's really no point in refreshing media on a constant basis.  I
could see refreshing it after a new kernel version goes stable, and
that's about it.  Anything else seems like a terrible waste of time and
resources for minimal gain.  In most cases, your CD wouldn't change at
all from day to day.  For QA purposes, I run builds year-round.  I just
don't release them because I don't test them thoroughly.

> 3) fork the code or convert the repository into a repo of my own. Even if I choose to use the same
> kind of repo (CVS in this case), then how hard will merging be? Again, this goes both ways.

You don't merge.  You would file a bug with the changes and we would
either accept or deny the changes on a case-by-case basis.

> I hope I missed something here, but of the three the third looks the most appealing and likely with
> me forking into darcs probably. I don't think this issue would be here if the code were in a
> distributed SCM, but maybe by the time 2007.1 is due I will have amassed enough interesting changes
> that it is easier for you to then just clone my distributed repo ;P.

Again, it is *very* unlikely.  If you look at the changes in the minimal
CD set between releases, you will see that it is extremely minimal, if
changes are even made.  We simply don't change things that work.  The
only changes that really go in are bug fixes.  Are you saying that
you're going to be tracking all of the release bugs and fixing only
those?  Are you planning on adding features?  The former would be
helpful to Release Engineering, the latter would not be nearly as useful
to us unless they were absolutely compelling.

> So can we please discuss what distributed SCM is best for the tree or likely to be in the future and
> what hard data obtained with what tests should be gathered to rank SCMs and what feature differences
> there are and how much we should care about them?

I don't get why you discuss a distributed SCM, then proceed to talk
about minimal CD + releases stuff which has nothing to do with the main
tree.  We keep our spec files in CVS, but it isn't the same repository
as the tree.  If you're talking about changing the tree, then yes, you
should be filing bugs and getting them fixed in the tree.

I'm honestly not sure what exactly it is that you're trying to
accomplish.  Some additional explanation would be great.

Again, if you want to see the tree converted to something else, you need
to show compelling reasons and data *why* it should be done.  Discussing
it doesn't really show those things and lends itself to giving only
beliefs, political or personal, about given SCM software.  I honestly
don't care what anybody *thinks* about any particular SCM.  I am
interested in the facts and numbers.  I don't have much preference
myself other than that I already know CVS/SVN.  If we were to make a
change, even to SVN, I'd like to see some well-thought-out reasons why
and some numbers to back it up.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 11:52 +0200, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
>> So in light of all that I don't think it is wasteful to restart this discussion.
> 
> I do.
>
> Want to bring it back up?  Go perform some tests and report back with
> some data if you feel prior efforts weren't done properly or
> reproducible.  My *entire* point was that *discussion* of this issue is
> worthless compared to numbers and data.  I see no need to hear 300+
> people tell everyone else their *opinion* on what they *think* is
> better.  Seeing some actual data, though, should be definitely
> encouraged.
> Again, if you want to see the tree converted to something else, you need
> to show compelling reasons and data *why* it should be done.  Discussing
> it doesn't really show those things and lends itself to giving only
> beliefs, political or personal, about given SCM software.  I honestly
> don't care what anybody *thinks* about any particular SCM.  I am
> interested in the facts and numbers.  I don't have much preference
> myself other than that I already know CVS/SVN.  If we were to make a
> change, even to SVN, I'd like to see some well-thought-out reasons why
> and some numbers to back it up.

I just don't think it is obvious what tests should be performed. Furthermore the difference between
the different systems is not just performance, but also features. So we need to discuss what
standards any candidate SCM should measure up to.

I thought the shortcomings in features of CVS in comparison with SVN were understood. Given in turn
SVN's shortcomings in comparison to distributed SCMs and the abundance and maturity of them it seems
to me that the only decision to be made is what to switch to.

> I don't get why you discuss a distributed SCM, then proceed to talk
> about minimal CD + releases stuff which has nothing to do with the main
> tree.

Just an example to demonstrate how non-distributed SCM impose artificial restrictions. You wanted to
be convinced, right? I realize the specifics of the example, specifically the expected small extent
of divergence, make this a bad example in practice. But think about the theory.
But let me try again. Suppose you are developing an ebuild or are cooperating in developing an
ebuild or set of ebuilds with eclasses such as happens now in overlays. Such overlays could just be
branches in the same repository with easy merging between branches which preserves history. All with
one tool.
It would also empower people who don't have push access to the tree or to a specific overlay or to
any overlay, by making it possible for them to do everything people with push access do except
pushing, instead of also making it very hard to use the same SCM.

- From some discussion on irc I learned that lack of tree and history slicing are two concerns of
git's readyness. I hope to do some tests on the tree slicing soon.
I also learned that darcs does not support enough architectures, most importantly mips. Therefore
I'd like to know what architectures need to be supported by a candidate SCM.

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGEo81p/VmCx0OL2wRApQxAKCh+ZB64BnDId+ZLPDh2k3xxIoQFgCgsLTJ
pFc/u9hEFshBUAIhXlvGgLk=
=j+xm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Roy Marples]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:30:29 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Therefore I'd like to
> know what architectures need to be supported by a candidate SCM.

Oh that's an easy one.
All arches that Gentoo supports.

Also it needs to support FreeBSD :)

Thanks

Roy
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5294 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 19:30 +0200, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> I just don't think it is obvious what tests should be performed. Furthermore the difference between
> the different systems is not just performance, but also features. So we need to discuss what
> standards any candidate SCM should measure up to.

No, we really don't.

First off, let's look at things we know we need.  This is pretty much
the CVS feature set.  Next, look at things we want.  Does any SCM
provide things we want?  Now, I'm not going to reiterate all the junk
people have said they want, since it's all archived for prosperity.
Next, start comparing the things we *require* and the things we *want*
in each SCM.  Some good metrics people have already been using are
server-side disk space, client-side disk space, bandwidth, time for
checkout, time for commit, time for update...

Also, remember that the needs of the few definitely doesn't outweigh the
needs of the many.  If 99.9% of the developer pool are doing only
checkout/update/commit cycles, then having a 50% drop in performance or
a 700% increase in disk usage only to gain features that don't affect
the 99.9% make a migration no longer worth it.  This is what I mean by
using numbers to back up your ideas.

> I thought the shortcomings in features of CVS in comparison with SVN were understood. Given in turn
> SVN's shortcomings in comparison to distributed SCMs and the abundance and maturity of them it seems
> to me that the only decision to be made is what to switch to.

What shortcomings, exactly?  This is something that you have to
quantify.

CVS does $x
CVS does not do $y

I simply have not seen much of anything that would be useful to a large
enough section of our developer pool to be worth the problems of a
migration.  About the only thing I see is "svn cp" to preserve history.
I see lots of reasons for it in non-tree repositories, but little in the
tree, which already has branches and tags disabled, among other things.

> > I don't get why you discuss a distributed SCM, then proceed to talk
> > about minimal CD + releases stuff which has nothing to do with the main
> > tree.
> 
> Just an example to demonstrate how non-distributed SCM impose artificial restrictions. You wanted to
> be convinced, right? I realize the specifics of the example, specifically the expected small extent
> of divergence, make this a bad example in practice. But think about the theory.

OK.  You weren't able to successfully demonstrate anything to me, then.
I saw nothing in your mail that showed me why what you described would
be a problem, especially considering the examples you used.

> But let me try again. Suppose you are developing an ebuild or are cooperating in developing an
> ebuild or set of ebuilds with eclasses such as happens now in overlays. Such overlays could just be
> branches in the same repository with easy merging between branches which preserves history. All with
> one tool.

I guess I've just never had the need to do anything of the sort.  I'm
perfectly capable of using revision bumps and other methodologies
already in use in the main tree in my overlays.  Why do we need two sets
of practices?  Why do we need to modify the main tree to fit the model
of the much smaller and less utilized overlays?

> It would also empower people who don't have push access to the tree or to a specific overlay or to
> any overlay, by making it possible for them to do everything people with push access do except
> pushing, instead of also making it very hard to use the same SCM.

Like what?

Qualify your statements.  I don't use other SCM software, like many of
our developers/users.  If you're going to try to tell me that I can't do
something I don't want to do, or don't even know is possible, you won't
convince me without compelling examples.

My point is that instead of discussing all of this yet again, you get
together some features you think are required and why, as well as some
performance metrics, as I stated above, and try approaching this from a
more technical front and less of an emotional one.  Like I said, I don't
care which SCM you like.  You shouldn't care which one I like.  There's
no way we could ever please everyone, so why even bother to switch?

> - From some discussion on irc I learned that lack of tree and history slicing are two concerns of
> git's readyness. I hope to do some tests on the tree slicing soon.

Excellent.

This was something that wasn't available before, so if you're wanting to
test it with a newer git that does this well, then that is something we
can look at as something that has changed.

> I also learned that darcs does not support enough architectures, most importantly mips. Therefore
> I'd like to know what architectures need to be supported by a candidate SCM.

Ideally, all of them.  I would consider dropping support for an
architecture we support currently a strong reason to never consider that
SCM.  If I cannot commit from the machine I'm doing a KEYWORD request
on, the SCM fails IMO.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Duncan]

Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> posted
1175626466.8202.56.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org, excerpted below, on  Tue,
03 Apr 2007 14:54:26 -0400:

> Now, I'm not going to reiterate all the junk people have said they want,
> since it's all archived for prosperity.

Now /that/ was worth the read. Interesting eggcorn[1] there. =8^)

FWIW, Google lists 27 hits for "archived for prosperity", 11,400 hits for 
"archived for posterity".

You've made my day, thanks! =8^)

[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eggcorn

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

There seemed to be still some doubt as to the benefits of distributed SCMs.
Fortunately Linus himself, at a talk at Google a few weeks back, explained the
benefits of being distributed and said fun and interesting things about git
and other source code managers. Yay for video cameras.

slashdot [ http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/03/004214 ]

youtube [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 ]

youtube non-flash (direct link to video file):
[ http://chi-v131.chi.youtube.com/get_video?video_id =4XpnKHJAok8 ]

independent non-flash:
[ http://www.meebey.net/temp/Tech Talk: Linus Torvalds on git.avi ]

happy watching,

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGYvO8p/VmCx0OL2wRAp26AKCLy9iGQWIgFQ0ZuAGyknGLWS2QfACgg/mM
sKc9jojM1cPW80b7kOY8/Jg=
=rsjM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 499 bytes --]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:00:44 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@gentoo.org> wrote:
> There seemed to be still some doubt as to the benefits of distributed
> SCMs. Fortunately Linus himself, at a talk at Google a few weeks
> back, explained the benefits of being distributed and said fun and
> interesting things about git and other source code managers. Yay for
> video cameras.

Linus is biased towards the Linux development model, which is highly
atypical.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Luca Barbato]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Linus is biased towards the Linux development model, which is highly
> atypical.

Better said as "git is pretty good for developing linux", would it fit
our needs?

The only problem I see is getting a good documentation about using git
sourcemage[1] made something nice even if I'm not sure how much up to date.


[1] http://wiki.sourcemage.org/Git_Guide


-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy]

On 6/3/07, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Linus is biased towards the Linux development model, which is highly
> > atypical.
>
> Better said as "git is pretty good for developing linux", would it fit
> our needs?
>
> The only problem I see is getting a good documentation about using git
> sourcemage[1] made something nice even if I'm not sure how much up to date.
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.sourcemage.org/Git_Guide

How about Git User's Manual [2]?

[2] http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html
>
> --
>
> Luca Barbato
>
> Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
Duy
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Stratos Psomadakis]

O/H Marijn Schouten (hkBst) έγραψε:
> There seemed to be still some doubt as to the benefits of distributed
> SCMs.
> Fortunately Linus himself, at a talk at Google a few weeks back,
> explained the
> benefits of being distributed and said fun and interesting things
> about git
> and other source code managers. Yay for video cameras.
>
> slashdot [ http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/03/004214 ]
>
> youtube [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 ]
>
> youtube non-flash (direct link to video file):
> [ http://chi-v131.chi.youtube.com/get_video?video_id =4XpnKHJAok8 ]
>
> independent non-flash:
> [ http://www.meebey.net/temp/Tech Talk: Linus Torvalds on git.avi ]
>
> happy watching,
>
> Marijn
very interesting talk...
but i think linus is too biased against other scms...
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: SCM choices

[Olivier Galibert]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 03:30:37AM +0300, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> but i think linus is too biased against other scms...

He is biased against technical choices done in other SCMs, which is
not exactly the main thing.  Specifically, from what I can see, he
hates:

- centralization (cvs, svn...)

- file ids (cvs, svn, hg, ...)

- hiding what is really going on on the pretext that "it's easier"
  (lots of interfaces out there, or people who want commit -a as
  default for git)

- lack of ways to be sure we're talking about the same code in the end
  (quilt)

- anything slow (almost every other scm out there)

I very probably have missed some.  It's obvious why git doesn't have
properties Linus hates.

  OG.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list