[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:06:37PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > (I mean, how does my proposal to drop the 'has users' requirement in favor 
> > of 'do we have developers' ignore the resource usage.  I certainly do not 
> > dispute that a port uses resources.)
> Ok, then perhaps it doesn't ignore it, but I don't believe that it
> addresses it adequately.  A 5GB repository on a central project machine,
> that adds to the maintenance load of DSA and the ftp-masters,

5GB? The archive's 140GB, so that's over 10GB per architecture on each
mirror, and there's additional space for old binaries that're kept around
in the morgue -- which is a little under 3GB per month per architecture;
we're keeping old debs around for between six months and a year atm,
so that's probably more like 34GB centrally and 10GB on mirrors.

The real problem, IMO, with not having users is that it becomes easy
to say "oh, well, no one's using it, doesn't matter if it stays broken
a while longer, I've got other things to do", or, worse, "this fix is
crucially needed for this architecture which no one users, sorry that
it breaks i386".

> > And even if:  would a userless port have the developers?  


I thought there was going to be separate questions, something like: show
you've got 5-10 DDs who'll support and maintain the port, appropriate
upstream support for the toolchain, and ~50 actual users who'll use the
port for real life things.

(And that's the /general/ case, if s390 doesn't need 50 separate users
because it has 10 machines with 50 billion users each to justify its
existance, that's fine -- exceptions can be made to any of these sorts
of rules when appropriate)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: