we've had a request to support monotone on hosted. Instead of having this conversation in private I thought it best to put it on the list. So thoughts? This is part "do we want to support monotone" and part "do we want hosted to be more then svn, hg, git, bzr".
In general I'm happy supporting only those 4, we can't be everything for everyone and AFAIK we're the only OSS project with a hosted offering that supports 4 SCM's.
Thoughts?
-Mike
On Dec 12, 2007 10:33 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
we've had a request to support monotone on hosted. Instead of having this conversation in private I thought it best to put it on the list. So thoughts? This is part "do we want to support monotone" and part "do we want hosted to be more then svn, hg, git, bzr".
In general I'm happy supporting only those 4, we can't be everything for everyone and AFAIK we're the only OSS project with a hosted offering that supports 4 SCM's.
Thoughts?
+0
On 12/12/07, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
we've had a request to support monotone on hosted. Instead of having this conversation in private I thought it best to put it on the list. So thoughts? This is part "do we want to support monotone" and part "do we want hosted to be more then svn, hg, git, bzr".
In general I'm happy supporting only those 4, we can't be everything for everyone and AFAIK we're the only OSS project with a hosted offering that supports 4 SCM's.
I think that if:
1) The SCM is in RHEL/EPEL. 2) There are real projects that want to use it (and that we feel like will stick around). 3) Implementation is fairly straightforward 4) Someone on the hosted admin team is willing/able to install/support it.
We should.
Supporting more than just SVN and CVS is one way we can distinguish Fedora Hosted from other project hosting.
Jeff
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 21:50 -0600, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On 12/12/07, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
we've had a request to support monotone on hosted. Instead of having this conversation in private I thought it best to put it on the list. So thoughts? This is part "do we want to support monotone" and part "do we want hosted to be more then svn, hg, git, bzr".
In general I'm happy supporting only those 4, we can't be everything for everyone and AFAIK we're the only OSS project with a hosted offering that supports 4 SCM's.
I think that if:
- The SCM is in RHEL/EPEL.
- There are real projects that want to use it (and that we feel like
will stick around). 3) Implementation is fairly straightforward 4) Someone on the hosted admin team is willing/able to install/support it.
We should.
Supporting more than just SVN and CVS is one way we can distinguish Fedora Hosted from other project hosting.
we are supporting more the svn/cvs. We're supporting: git, bzr, hg, cvs, svn
that's quite a lot, actually.
-sv
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:56:04 -0500 seth vidal skvidal@fedoraproject.org wrote:
cvs
AFAIK we don't actually offer CVS for hosted projects. Trac doesn't support it, and our first rule should be "Do No Harm" (:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:22 PM, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:56:04 -0500 seth vidal skvidal@fedoraproject.org wrote:
cvs
AFAIK we don't actually offer CVS for hosted projects. Trac doesn't support it, and our first rule should be "Do No Harm" (:
I thought the first rule was "Be Evil" and then "Do More Harm". I mean we should be supporting RCS (it works great over SSH) and SCCS.
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:22 PM, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:56:04 -0500 seth vidal skvidal@fedoraproject.org wrote:
cvs
AFAIK we don't actually offer CVS for hosted projects. Trac doesn't support it, and our first rule should be "Do No Harm" (:
I thought the first rule was "Be Evil" and then "Do More Harm". I mean we should be supporting RCS (it works great over SSH) and SCCS.
I have to admit I am worried about slippery slope. I'd hate to support a VCS that only has 2 or 3 repos on it. Especially if its not one we have in-house expertise with.
-Mike
On Dec 12, 2007 11:24 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:22 PM, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:56:04 -0500 seth vidal skvidal@fedoraproject.org wrote:
cvs
AFAIK we don't actually offer CVS for hosted projects. Trac doesn't support it, and our first rule should be "Do No Harm" (:
I thought the first rule was "Be Evil" and then "Do More Harm". I mean we should be supporting RCS (it works great over SSH) and SCCS.
I have to admit I am worried about slippery slope. I'd hate to support a VCS that only has 2 or 3 repos on it. Especially if its not one we have in-house expertise with.
-Mike
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
I tend to think if you can't use one of the vc systems already provided, you need specialty hosting and with that, probably a lot of care and feeding. We are already offering the most common SCMs in use (except CVS ^^ see above). Always saying 'yes' and allowing new things to pop up is not maintainable in the long term. I am actually surprised we offer as many SCMs as we do.
stahnma
I tend to agree with stahnma. Currently we already offer the most common SCMs, and from what i can see no one has really good knowledge with monotone, which may be a problem regarding some future troubleshooting/administration/whatever. If we still think that monotone, would be a good addition though, we could always send some emails and see what would be the acceptance of it and the number of projects to be created.
For now i would say no to monotone, since we don't have the in-house expertise, and any relevant data on how many projects would be actually using it.
Paulo
On Dec 13, 2007 7:10 AM, Michael Stahnke mastahnke@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 11:24 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:22 PM, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:56:04 -0500 seth vidal skvidal@fedoraproject.org wrote:
cvs
AFAIK we don't actually offer CVS for hosted projects. Trac doesn't support it, and our first rule should be "Do No Harm" (:
I thought the first rule was "Be Evil" and then "Do More Harm". I mean we should be supporting RCS (it works great over SSH) and SCCS.
I have to admit I am worried about slippery slope. I'd hate to support a VCS that only has 2 or 3 repos on it. Especially if its not one we have in-house expertise with.
-Mike
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
I tend to think if you can't use one of the vc systems already provided, you need specialty hosting and with that, probably a lot of care and feeding. We are already offering the most common SCMs in use (except CVS ^^ see above). Always saying 'yes' and allowing new things to pop up is not maintainable in the long term. I am actually surprised we offer as many SCMs as we do.
stahnma
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Paulo Santos said the following on 12/13/2007 01:15 AM Pacific Time:
I tend to agree with stahnma. Currently we already offer the most common SCMs, and from what i can see no one has really good knowledge with monotone, which may be a problem regarding some future troubleshooting/administration/whatever. If we still think that monotone, would be a good addition though, we could always send some emails and see what would be the acceptance of it and the number of projects to be created.
For now i would say no to monotone, since we don't have the in-house expertise, and any relevant data on how many projects would be actually using it.
Paulo
Can someone put forth a strong argument as to why monotone provides better functionality than the existing 4 choices? Otherwise I think we have done our due diligence by providing freedom to projects *choose* a SCM from the supported list which includes most of the currently widely used SCMs.
Having too many choices isn't always a good thing. One of many links I found on google: http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/toomany.html
John
John Poelstra wrote:
Paulo Santos said the following on 12/13/2007 01:15 AM Pacific Time:
I tend to agree with stahnma. Currently we already offer the most common SCMs, and from what i can see no one has really good knowledge with monotone, which may be a problem regarding some future troubleshooting/administration/whatever. If we still think that monotone, would be a good addition though, we could always send some emails and see what would be the acceptance of it and the number of projects to be created.
For now i would say no to monotone, since we don't have the in-house expertise, and any relevant data on how many projects would be actually using it.
Paulo
Can someone put forth a strong argument as to why monotone provides better functionality than the existing 4 choices? Otherwise I think we have done our due diligence by providing freedom to projects *choose* a SCM from the supported list which includes most of the currently widely used SCMs.
+1.
Doing something to curb rapid-SCM-expansion we're seeing everywhere would be welcome IMHO, and might do some good in getting people to contribute more on the big 4 (or 5, or 6, etc). I heard someone comment how he needed to understand 6 SCM tools to understand all the upstreams his project was using.
I know I'm not helping to maintain any of our existing SCM support, but it seems like it would be creating a lot of extra work for infrastructure and not many people would use it. Bigger fish to fry?
Besides, everyone should just be using git :)
--Michael
On Dec 12, 2007 8:50 PM, Jeffrey Ollie jeff@ocjtech.us wrote:
On 12/12/07, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
we've had a request to support monotone on hosted. Instead of having this conversation in private I thought it best to put it on the list. So thoughts? This is part "do we want to support monotone" and part "do we want hosted to be more then svn, hg, git, bzr".
In general I'm happy supporting only those 4, we can't be everything for everyone and AFAIK we're the only OSS project with a hosted offering that supports 4 SCM's.
I think that if:
- The SCM is in RHEL/EPEL.
- There are real projects that want to use it (and that we feel like
will stick around). 3) Implementation is fairly straightforward 4) Someone on the hosted admin team is willing/able to install/support it.
We should.
Supporting more than just SVN and CVS is one way we can distinguish Fedora Hosted from other project hosting.
I would also say that the people wanting XYZ SCM need to volunteer to help 'us' on it. As in hosted-help-monotone questions go to someone who can answer them versus someone else who can't. If they can provide that help and training.. that is a +, if they can't it is a definate -.
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:33:19 -0600 Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
we've had a request to support monotone on hosted. Instead of having this conversation in private I thought it best to put it on the list. So thoughts? This is part "do we want to support monotone" and part "do we want hosted to be more then svn, hg, git, bzr".
In general I'm happy supporting only those 4, we can't be everything for everyone and AFAIK we're the only OSS project with a hosted offering that supports 4 SCM's.
So far, the SCMs we support have been driven mostly by the SCMs that Trac supports, with the exception to bzr which I had nothing to do with setting up.
So the questions are, does Trac support monotone, does monotone lend itself to a hosted environment (easy ssh commit access, http anon access, useful web browser, easy to create empty repos for developers to fill, etc...), is it in EPEL, does it have a security track record, and uh... is there anybody on the infrastructure team that feels like they could become our site expert on it?
On Dec 13, 2007 5:55 AM, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:33:19 -0600 Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
we've had a request to support monotone on hosted. Instead of having this conversation in private I thought it best to put it on the list. So thoughts? This is part "do we want to support monotone" and part "do we want hosted to be more then svn, hg, git, bzr".
In general I'm happy supporting only those 4, we can't be everything for everyone and AFAIK we're the only OSS project with a hosted offering that supports 4 SCM's.
So far, the SCMs we support have been driven mostly by the SCMs that Trac supports, with the exception to bzr which I had nothing to do with setting up.
There's trac support for monotone http://tracmtn.1erlei.de/ ; but it won't answer all your questions.
So the questions are, does Trac support monotone, does monotone lend itself to a hosted environment (easy ssh commit access, http anon access, useful web browser, easy to create empty repos for developers to fill, etc...), is it in EPEL, does it have a security track record, and uh... is there anybody on the infrastructure team that feels like they could become our site expert on it?
-- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:33:19 -0600 Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
we've had a request to support monotone on hosted. Instead of having this conversation in private I thought it best to put it on the list. So thoughts? This is part "do we want to support monotone" and part "do we want hosted to be more then svn, hg, git, bzr".
In general I'm happy supporting only those 4, we can't be everything for everyone and AFAIK we're the only OSS project with a hosted offering that supports 4 SCM's.
So far, the SCMs we support have been driven mostly by the SCMs that Trac supports, with the exception to bzr which I had nothing to do with setting up.
So the questions are, does Trac support monotone, does monotone lend itself to a hosted environment (easy ssh commit access, http anon access, useful web browser, easy to create empty repos for developers to fill, etc...), is it in EPEL, does it have a security track record, and uh... is there anybody on the infrastructure team that feels like they could become our site expert on it?
Reply (slightly edited) from Roland:
How do we integrate access control with the Fedora Account System?
Can it integrate with FAS somehow? Does it have easy ssh based commit access?
The ssh-based access is just like ssh-based access to git, so the account system integration is exactly the same except for what the forced command to run the server is.
The simplest thing is to support only ssh-based access. To support monotone's own authenticated TCP protocol would require a simple hook in the account system to maintain a flat file listing write-authorized key identifiers (user@domain). (The public key bits themselves live in the repository database and can get there just by an ssh-authorized user making a commit.)
Does it have http based anonymous access?
No kind of direct access is based on http. It is very easy to set up its own TCP protocol server for anonymous-only access, or to have an "anonymous" ssh user. (With the caveat of one shared database, as I explained earlier.)
Does trac support it?
Not AFAIK, but I would be willing to work on it if it buys something. We are not interested in using Trac for elfutils any time soon. (We use Fedora bugzilla and that is all we need in the way of formality.)
Does it have a useful Web browser view?
Yes, see http://viewmtn.angrygoats.net/ for an example. I have not packaged viewmtn for Fedora yet, but I would be glad to do it and make this very simple to set up.
How easy is it to create new repos?
Trivial. You need a directory that the server daemon (for non-ssh server setup) or ssh user can write, and then initialization is one quick command.
How long until we get monotone in EPEL?
For EL5, it's only as long as it takes me to figure out how to request the branch.
What is its security track record?
I've never heard of an exploit. The monotone project (http://monotone.ca) and others have had public servers running for a long time (since long before git existed, for example).
-Mike
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:58:32 -0600 Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
No kind of direct access is based on http. It is very easy to set up its own TCP protocol server for anonymous-only access, or to have an "anonymous" ssh user. (With the caveat of one shared database, as I explained earlier.)
This would be my only real concern then. To be good upstreams we have to allow for anon access to the code, so I would like to see a packaged server to serve anon access. But the rest of the answers seem to be fair and it would be something of a boon to get elfutils out in the open.
Mike McGrath wrote:
we've had a request to support monotone on hosted. Instead of having this conversation in private I thought it best to put it on the list. So thoughts? This is part "do we want to support monotone" and part "do we want hosted to be more then svn, hg, git, bzr".
In general I'm happy supporting only those 4, we can't be everything for everyone and AFAIK we're the only OSS project with a hosted offering that supports 4 SCM's.
Thoughts?
FIWI I've decided to put this to a vote today in the meeting - #fedora-meeting:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/283
-Mike
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Diaa Radwan -
Jeffrey Ollie -
Jesse Keating -
John Poelstra -
Michael DeHaan -
Michael Stahnke -
Mike McGrath -
Paulo Santos -
Seth Vidal -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Yaakov Nemoy