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