From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Eex7O-00024L-3t for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:05:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jANG3gBY016239; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:03:42 GMT Received: from jaguar.lieber.org (jaguar.lieber.org [217.160.252.168]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jANFxMDp009922 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:59:22 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.lieber.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA8729D746 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:04:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jaguar.lieber.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (jaguar.lieber.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21762-13 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:04:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by jaguar.lieber.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E633629C1EF; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:04:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:04:08 +0000 From: Kurt Lieber <klieber@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] R/O CVS access and its purpose for ATs (was Email subdomain) Message-ID: <20051123160408.GE12982@mail.lieber.org> References: <20051118221428.15ba3adb@snowdrop.home> <437E5965.10502@gentoo.org> <20051118235829.GC12958@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <3610591862.20051119010748@gentoo.org> <437E7B49.7080204@gentoo.org> <20051119194848.GC28867@gentoo.org> <1132439575.4100.20.camel@disoft-dc.keine.ath.cx> <20051123001927.0641dc5d@sven.genone.homeip.net> <4383B046.1060209@gentoo.org> <1132760320.7909.10.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8M+gQFKLhTGBxzRu" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1132760320.7909.10.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net> X-GPG-Key: http://www.lieber.org/kurtl.pub.gpg User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lieber.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-3.3, AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599] X-Spam-Score: -5.894 X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: dfad8541-ac21-49f9-8d8f-1920821f6a00 X-Archives-Hash: 96e23d4274bcca90c8106d26852453ba --8M+gQFKLhTGBxzRu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:38:39AM -0500 or thereabouts, Daniel Ostrow wrot= e: > And herein I think lies some confusion. Personally if I were an AT both > would be important but more to the point the "more up to date" issue > would be the most important.=20 I agree -- this was the main point of the original GLEP. > an AT does a > `cvs up` and retests to try and catch *other* errors all within a matter > of *single digit* minutes.=20 I do question the need for "single digit" minutes. 30 minutes may be too much, but I think we could probably live with something in the 10-15 minute range. (if folks disagree, please speak up) > I know this is a far cry from what you are proposing, and I understand > that the present CVS server cannot handle this sort of load but I > believe that this was the original intention at least...someone correct > me if I am wrong. Anything is possible -- it's merely a matter of how much money we want to spend in the process. So far, nobody has really come back and said that using CVS, specifically, is a requirement. So, at this point, all options are on the table, but the main goal is to provide something that is as close to real-time as possible and allows authorized individuals to synchronize far more often than the current public rsync mirrors. All this is for a targeted group of up to ~100 users. Can we agree on these requirements? Are there others that I've left out? If not, we can start working on an implementation plan. --kurt --8M+gQFKLhTGBxzRu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDhJL4JPpRNiftIEYRAktcAJ4yPcut/tbYhUO/5XSqGNKMu6TjFgCfTjb1 v0TvTFQr83CMGz0f57U8wEc= =ZemF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8M+gQFKLhTGBxzRu-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list