On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:40:39PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > On 3/26/14, 10:11 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:40:36PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > >>On 3/26/14, 4:53 PM, 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. > >> > >>How much time do we spend operating user repositories? I follow the repos > >>bugzilla components and most of the requests I see have little if anything > >>to do with user repositories. And I reckon that's because user repositories > >>are self-service. > > > >Note that while user repositories are self-service on the creation side, > >there is no obvious way to self-service a user repo removal. I'm not in > >Taras's list, but after looking, I figured I had an old m-c copy with > >old patches on top of it. > > That sounds like a bug in the self-service feature! > > >Also note that the lack of something better than mercurial's share, we > >sadly have to waste plenty of disk space for each copy of a mercurial > >repo. If mercurial's share was more like git's object alternates, that > >would be much less dramatic. (BTW, I don't think it would be extremely > >difficult to implement) > > It's 2014: why are we worrying about disk space values less than 10 TB? > > More seriously though, it's not extremely difficult to implement a custom > storage backend for Mercurial. remotefilelog does it. It's only a matter of > time before someone hooks up SQL, S3, Neo4j, etc to make server-side scaling > more efficient.
That doesn't even need sql, s3, or whatever. Just that a shared clone have local filelogs. > Also, if you are using a COW filesystem, initial clones should be nearly > free and you'd only pay the extra copy cost for changesets added afterwards. > This could help dramatically with mozilla-central clones. > > Out of curiosity, is there open source software for a shared Git object > store? git. Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
