Re: concerns about Salsa
]] Russ Allbery
I agree with the points in your mail, but I wanted to expand slightly on
where I think Debian stands in the scale you described.
> I think people's varying reactions on this thread may have a lot to do
> with where they are in this hierarchy of scale, and what problems they
> therefore anticipate. But the Debian Project infrastructure itself seems
> to me to be firmly in that middle tier where it makes sense to run the
> core thing out of Git and the supporting scaffolding from packages. We
> have a lot of things that we're working on directly and intensely as the
> core mission of that part of the project, but generally they're deployed
> on one or two machines and don't need management at scale, canarying, and
> rollback properties.
As DSA, I'd love to have Kubernetes or similar in stable so we could
have deployment using containers and just rebuild those and then service
owners could have a good way to do both development, testing and
deployment of their services. It would also offer a much better way for
people to help out with services: If you want to help with, say,
packages.d.o, you can download the git repo and some sample data (or
database schema + importer), build a container with your changes and
then test them.
This is significantly easier than the current way, which is something
like: install a set of packages (defined in the debian metapackages
repo), then maybe set up some scaffolding (defined in dsa-puppet), then
deploy the service (with scripts that make assumptions about the
environment, host names, etc; if you're unlucky that «script» is only in
the service owner's .$SHELL_history file), then test that and finally
provide a patch with just the relevant changes for the feature or bug
you're trying to implement or fix.
So while we're not likely to have many deployments of each service,
lowering the bar for setting up services, defining a very clear boundary
between the service and its surroundings and making service development
much easier would be worth it for us.
> More broadly, one useful way to think about the mission of a Linux
> distribution is to make all the things our users *don't* care about
> effortless and simple, so that they can invest all of their energy and
> attention into the one or two things they *do* care about. Trying to get
> them to package those few things that they care about deeply is more
> dubious and often doesn't add much value for them.
This is a good point.
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are