Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:36:57 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD 5.1 Released! Message-ID: <20030610223657.GA15071@ns1.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20030610213812.GB10251@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> References: <20030610164328.GD2099@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <200306101848.h5AImAVt006033@lurza.secnetix.de> <20030610212022.GB14325@ns1.xcllnt.net> <20030610213812.GB10251@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 05:38:12PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 02:20:22PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > > I'm not a mirror operator (IANAMO? :-) and I just recently > > entered the playground by providing the ia64 release bits and > > snapshots, but I can truely say that I'm amazed by how > > unstructured this all is. So, in that respect I don't think > > you're wrong. > > I've been watching for a while longer than you. I could be wrong and > if I am I truly apologize to who this is likely to offend but... I > don't think there is anyone other than the RE team that dabbles in > the structure of the mirror system, and they only do it when it's > close to release time. I tend to support you here. From the 6 months that I'm on the hubs@ list it's clear that release time is when all "hell" breaks loose. People who are otherwise uninterested (like me -- sorry) have to be part of "it" by providing bits and that's a common source for friction, misunderstanding and irritation. > I sorta noticed the apparent lack of a coordinator and sorta offered > to help but haven't been told if they're interested. They might have > other plans in the works and didn't need the help (or had someone else > in mind with better qualifications... :-). I may be stepping on toes here, but what about just taking control? Why not own this problem among the mirror operators and tell those weenies who upload to ftp-master to shut up and do as they're told? Put differently: I have a very simply perspective on this: I don't know what I'm talking about and I don't want to. All I want is some guidelines, procedures and/or tools so that I can provide the bits I want to provide in whatever way you want me to provide them and then get on with my work. I think it's not unrealistic to have this simplistic perspective apply to almost everybody who merely provides bits, including to, in big parts, re@ and kris@ (where kris stands for everything related to packages :-). Of course different bits require different handling, but that's in my point of view mostly your problem, not mine. In return for this power, I only ask predictability and consistency so that there's a way for users (and me) to know where and when the bits are expected to be accessable. Is this too naive a viewpoint? -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030610223657.GA15071>