I don't understand what the overhead is. We don't run CI on user repos. It's effectively just ssh:// + disk space, right? That seems totally negligible.
Also, project branches are pretty useful for teams working together on large projects that aren't ready to land in m-c. We only use them when we need them, so why would we shut them down? On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:11 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 2014-03-26 16:53 -0700, Taras Glek wrote: > > *User Repos* > > TLDR: I would like to make user repos read-only by April 30th. We > > should archive them by May 31st. > > > > Time spent operating user repositories could be spent reducing our > > end-to-end continuous integration cycles. These do not seem like > > mission-critical repos, seems like developers would be better off > > hosting these on bitbucket or github. Using a 3rd-party host has > > obvious benefits for collaboration & self-service that our existing > > system will never meet. > > > > We are happy to help move specific hg repos to bitbucket. > > > > Once you have migrated your repository, please comment in > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=988628so we can free > > some disk space. > > This seems like a pretty disruptive change -- it involves breaking > links to the places lots of little pieces of our infrastructure > live. > > It also means that we're not in control of our own data in a way > that's often useful to us -- having access to our history is often > very important for understanding the present (such as understanding > why code is the way it is). If we don't have reliable archiving of > our history, those of us who think it's important will end up > spreading that work around and probably being less efficient at it. > (For example, I try to save dev-platform threads that I think are > important locally because I don't trust the Google Groups archive to > be permanent.) > > It also makes it harder to find Mozilla-related things. For > example, many of us publish version-controlled patch queues as user > repositories. If I'm reviewing a patch queue and want to apply the > queue, I occasionally look around at see if that user has published > the patch queue as a user repository so that I can apply it. If > there's no longer a standard place for them to be published, I'll > end up either sorting out the patch order manually or waiting 24 > hours for somebody in another timezone to wake up and tell me where > it is. > > > *Non-User Repos* > > There are too many non-user repos. I'm not convinced we should host > > ash, oak, other project branches internally. I think we should focus > > on mission-critical repos only. There should be less than a dozen > > of those. I would like to stop hosting non-mission-critical > > repositories by end of Q2. > > The goal of project branches is so that teams can collaborate on a > project that needs continuous integration testing during its > development. Are we not using it for that? > > > Hosting arbitrary Moz-related hg repositories does not make > > strategic sense. We should do the absolute minimum(eg > > http://bke.ro/?p=380) required to keep Firefox shipping smoothly and > > focus our efforts on making Firefox better. > > I think it makes sense if individual developers are going to end up > spending more time/resources working around the fact that we don't > do it than it would take to continue doing it. I don't have data > one way or another, but I think it's a real possibility. > > -David > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > What I was walling in or walling out, > And to whom I was like to give offense. > - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
