Can't push to haddock

[Phyx]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017, 09:48 Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <
ghc-devs at haskell.org> wrote:

> It seems to me that there is some hostility towards GitHub in GHC HQ, but
> I don't really understand why. GitHub serves other similar projects quite
> well, e.g. Rust, and I can't see why we should be special.
>
> Speaking for myself, I have no hostility towards GitHub, and there is no
> GHC-HQ bias against it that I know of.  If it serves the purpose better, we
> should use it.   Indeed that’s why I asked my original question.  I agree
> with your point that data may actually be safer in GitHub than in our own
> repo.   (And there is nothing to stop a belt-and-braces mirror backup
> system.)
>
>
>
These are just a few of the times github has been down in 2017
http://currentlydown.com/github.com compared to haskell.org
http://currentlydown.com/haskell.org

Other third parties such as gitlab.com have suffered catastrophic data
failures and by the very virtue of them being free means they don't owe you
anything.

I have nothing against github for small projects. I have nothing but hate
for it for large ones. And I don't see that changing any time soon as
everything they do seems to be half baked and the bare minimum

> The issue is: does GitHub serve the purpose better?
> http://currentlydown.co have frequently debated this multi-dimensional
> question.  And we should continue to do so: the answers may change over
> time (GitHub’s facilities are not static; and its increasing dominance is
> itself a cultural familiarity factor that simply was not the case five
> years ago).
>

As is often the case in computing history. Dominance does not mean best nor
fit for purpose. Supposedly switching to these cloud based CIs were suppose
to solve all our issues. And to this day none of them are working not
withstanding the massive amount of effort wasted to get them to work.


Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Sven Panne [mailto:svenpanne at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 19 December 2017 09:30
> *To:* Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvriedel at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>; ghc-devs at haskell.org
> Devs <ghc-devs at haskell.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Can't push to haddock
>
>
>
> 2017-12-19 9:50 GMT+01:00 Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvriedel at gmail.com>:
>
> We'd need mirroring anyway, as we want to keep control over our
> infrastructure and not have to trust a 3rd party infrastructure to
> safely handle our family jewels: GHC's source tree.
>
>
>
> I think this is a question of perspective: Having the master repository on
> GitHub doesn't mean you are in immediate danger or lose your "family
> jewels". IMHO it's quite the contrary: I'm e.g. sure that in case that
> something goes wrong with GitHub, there is far more manpower behind it to
> fix that than for any self-hosted repository. And you can of course have
> some mirror of your GitHub repo in case of e.g. an earthquake/meteor/... in
> the San Francisco area... ;-)
>
>
>
> It seems to me that there is some hostility towards GitHub in GHC HQ, but
> I don't really understand why. GitHub serves other similar projects quite
> well, e.g. Rust, and I can't see why we should be special.
>
>
>
> Also, catching bad commits "a bit later" is just asking for trouble --
> by the time they're caught the git repos have already lost their
> invariant and its a big mess to recover;
>
>
>
> This is by no means different than saying: "I want to run 'validate' in
> the commit hook, otherwise it's a big mess." We don't do this for obvious
> reasons, and what is the "big mess" if there is some incorrect submodule
> reference for a short time span? How is that different from somebody
> introducing e.g. a subtle compiler bug in a commit?
>
>
>
> the invariant I devised and
> whose validation I implemented 4 years ago has served us pretty well,
> and has ensured that we never glitched into incorrectness; I'm also not
> sure why it's being suggested to switch to a less principled and more
> fragile scheme now. [...]
>
>
>
> Because the whole repository structure is overly complicated and simply
> hosting everything on GitHub would simplify things. Again: I'm well aware
> that there are tradeoffs involved, but I would really appreciate
> simplifications. I have the impression that the entry barrier to GHC
> development has become larger and larger over the years, partly because of
> very non-standard tooling, partly because of the increasingly arcane
> repository organization. There are reasons that other projects like Rust
> attract far more developers... :-/
>
> </GrumpyMode>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20171219/14756794/attachment.html>