xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving from oss.sgi.com to kernel.org

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving from oss.sgi.com to kernel.org
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 08:32:02 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140807000922.GA26465@dastard>
References: <20140807000922.GA26465@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 10:09:22AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> A few recent incidents, discoveries and comments have me concerned
> about the viability of using oss.sgi.com to host XFS deveopment and
> community support.
> 
> We are very grateful for the time, effort and money that SGI has put
> into providing oss.sgi.com for us over many, many years, but these
> recent issues have brought the state of oss.sgi.com and hence it's
> viability as a host for XFS development to my immediate attention.
> 
> Ultimately, as the XFS maintainer, I'm responsible for the contents
> of the pull requests sent to Linus and the code we distribute to
> users, distros and developers. That means I need to be able to trust
> that the hosting infrastructure is secure and well maintained.
> 
> The short story is that I can't trust oss.sgi.com to be maintained
> and secure anymore. The recent DOS issues with oss.sgi.com made it
> clear that it is essentially unmaintained and the SGI admins don't
> have time to address issues that arise. This little snippet of the
> conversion about blocking the rogue spider causing the recent
> ftp and gitweb DOS problems is instructive:
> 
> [19/07/14 09:07] <sandeen> trev, it's you guys' box :)
> [19/07/14 09:07] <sandeen> you get to make it work 
> [19/07/14 09:07] <dchinner__> I am not eh administrator, and if I'm forced to 
> do this sort of thing I'll just take the content elsewhere....
> [19/07/14 09:08] <trev> dchinner__, please do so. I don't have much time for 
> oss anymore
> 
> It should be no surprise that since this conversation I've been
> looking at what is involved in moving everything XFS off oss.sgi.com
> to kernel.org.  Right now I have the main XFS repositories up to
> date on kernel.org.  For userspace I've simply pushed the current
> trees and tags to the pre-existing repositories here:
> 
>       git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfsprogs-dev.git
>       git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfsdump-dev.git
>       git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git
> 
> These trees currently have the same content as the trees on
> oss.sgi.com.  I may rename these as a result of discussions here
> (e.g. some people don't like the -dev suffix on the trees) so it's
> best for people to continue to use the trees on oss.sgi.com until
> this disucssion comes to a conclusion.
> 

These should be renamed, IMO. -dev implies the repo is some kind of
subtree. Furthermore, aside from the issue of updating current
references to point to new trees, I'm sure there's a decent enough
archive of references on the mailing list to these particular trees
being deprecated.

> My new kernel dev tree can be found here:
> 
>       git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git
> 
> This is my immediate concern: this tree, regardless of anything
> else, the tree I am going to be asking Linus to pull from - it is
> now *my* master tree and the tree on oss.sgi.com will simply mirror
> that tree.
> 
> For the short term, I will set up a cron job to keep the oss trees
> up to date with the trees on kernel.org. By "short-term" I mean till
> the end of the year at most. This will allow people time to change
> their workflows, update their repos, bookmarks, etc in their own
> time so hopefully not take anyone by surprise when the trees on
> oss.sgi.com stop updating. "short-term" is a rubbery concept - if
> anyone things it should be longer or shorter or whether a completely
> different approach is warranted, please speak up.
> 

What's the expected frequency of mirror updates? I'm assuming something
nightly, so changes should reflect generally within 24 hours..?

> Over the next few days I will move the remaining xfs trees to
> kernel.org - the historical kernel archive and documentation trees -
> and then I'll maintain them as the primary trees with the same
> short term mirroring backup.
> 
> In moving these trees, we will need to update some documentation
> (e.g. the "where to get" documentation on the xfs.org wiki) and
> links, as well as place a "readme" in the gitweb main page on
> oss.sgi.com to indicate that the up-to-date XFS trees are now on
> kernel.org and documenting the drop-dead date to when the trees on
> oss will no longer be kept up to date.
> 

It might be a good idea to somehow mark those repos when that drop dead
date hits. Perhaps rename master and drop a single README file with a
reference to the new repo, etc. Just a thought considering it seems like
at that point we could have up to three repos (if the -dev renames end
up being new repo creations or something, and if nuking the old ones
isn't an option) for some projects.

> The only remaining issue is what to do about tarball releases for
> xfsprogs/xfsdump/fstests. We currently have a bunch of historic
> releases in the ftp release area on oss.sgi.com. I will organise a
> release directory on kernel.org for future releases (location yet to
> be confirmed), but I'm not sure what to do with the older releases.
> I'm open to suggestions here, but the limit of what I will try to
> move to kernel.org is signed tarballs that I have verified.
> 
> For xfstests, I think this would be a good time to rename the
> project officially as well (i.e. to "fstests"). I'll need to talk to
> the kernel.org admins on where to locate it (pub/scm/fs/fstests is
> the best candidate, I think), but in the mean time I'll just mirror
> to oss.sgi.com as per the above so nobody needs to change anything
> until we sort out the final location/name of the tree. If anyone has
> any other ideas on this, please let me know, otherwise I'll just
> proceed with this plan.
> 

Personally, I can switch kernel trees fairly easily. I've cloned the
linux-xfs tree and can either move over whatever things I'm working on
or just start new efforts in the new tree.

That said, I'm hesitant to bother with any of the -dev repos until it's
clear what's going to happen with them (which is pretty much what you
suggested above). In other words, it's easiest to move once rather than
from oss.sgi.com xfstests, to kernel.org xfstests-dev then to kernel.org
fstests. Of course, it's good to have the latest repos replicated
somewhere if there is concern about the stability of the current host.

> In conjunction with this source tree move, I'd also like to start the
> move the mailing list. We have ongoing spam, performance and user
> access issues with oss.sgi.com, so IMO if we are moving source trees
> off this host we should also move the mailing list to kernel.org
> infrastructure.
> 

I hope that doesn't mean we lose our megatron subscription. ;)

Brian

> To that end, there is a linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> list already - it was created at the same time that the above
> kernel.org repositories were created, but we've never used it. It
> is archived here:
> 
>       http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-xfs/
> 
> Moving the mailing list is going to be something that affects more
> than just the developers - we've got lots of documentation that
> points at this list and there are lots of users that are subscribed,
> read it though nntp gateways, have aliases for it, etc so we need
> a good transition plan here.
> 
> I'm not sure what the best approach - perhaps just
> forwarding all email from xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx to
> linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx will solve most transitional problems
> for users that aren't aware of the change or are following old
> documentation or "please report bug" messages from xfs_repair.
> But it means that everyone needs to subscribe to the new list
> and probably unsubscribe from the old list. I dont see how we can
> avoid that in the long term, but I'd like to minimise the pain
> as much as possible for everyone.
> 
> Again, I'm open to suggestions on how to approach this and maintain
> the oss list aliases for long enough that people and search engines
> learn about the new list.
> 
> I would like to make this as painless as possible for everyone. This
> isn't the only solution to the problems we have with oss.sgi.com,
> but it's the path of least effort/greatest gain for me. If anyone
> has any ideas on alternative solutions, reservations about moving to
> kernel.org infrastructure and/or suggestions to make it less painful
> for everyone, please speak up now.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>