ppc @ ppc.bitkeeper.com

ppc @ ppc.bitkeeper.com

[Larry McVoy]

Hi folks, we have the anonymous stuff going here like so

bk://ppc.bitkeeper.com:5000 => linuxppc_2_4
bk://ppc.bitkeeper.com:5001 => linuxppc_2_2
bk://ppc.bitkeeper.com:5002 => linux_2_4
bk://ppc.bitkeeper.com:5003 => linux_2_2
bk://ppc.bitkeeper.com:5005 => linuxppc_2_4_devel

We're working getting BK/web up and we are also making changes so that you'll
be able to do this:

	bk clone http://ppc.bitkeeper.com/linuxppc_2_4

which will work through firewalls.  We have that working now but it requires
some small client side changes so we need to do a crankturn to get you the
new binaries.

While the machine we have has a gig of ram and a fast cpu, and a 1.5Mbit
net connection, we're really prefer that you cloned once and pulled many
times rather than recloning all the time.  Pulling uses tiny amounts of
bandwidth, we can barely detect it, but cloning burns about 35MBytes of
bandwidth.  It's worth getting a copy of BK even if you don't use BK
because it can transfer the data faster than ftp/rsync/whatever because
it already knows what has been changed.  A trivial mirroring command:

	# one time only
	bk clone bk://ppc.bitkeeper.com:5000 linuxppc_2_4

	# Nightly
	cd linuxppc_2_4
	bk pull
	rm -rf ../linuxppc_2_4.export
	bk export . ../linuxppc_2_4.export
--
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: ppc @ ppc.bitkeeper.com

[Albert D. Cahalan]

> We're working getting BK/web up and we are also making changes so that you'll
> be able to do this:
>
>         bk clone http://ppc.bitkeeper.com/linuxppc_2_4
>
> which will work through firewalls.

*sigh*

Encouraging people to violate security?

I guess everybody does it. Let's just get rid of all other ports.
Then we can all have stateful app-level firewalls to stop this
sort of hack. Admins can get regular updates, just like with their
anti-virus and Internet filter software. :-/

> While the machine we have has a gig of ram and a fast cpu, and a 1.5Mbit
> net connection, we're really prefer that you cloned once and pulled many
> times rather than recloning all the time.  Pulling uses tiny amounts of
> bandwidth, we can barely detect it, but cloning burns about 35MBytes of
> bandwidth.  It's worth getting a copy of BK even if you don't use BK
> because it can transfer the data faster than ftp/rsync/whatever because
> it already knows what has been changed.  A trivial mirroring command:
>
>         # one time only
>         bk clone bk://ppc.bitkeeper.com:5000 linuxppc_2_4
>
>         # Nightly
>         cd linuxppc_2_4
>         bk pull
>         rm -rf ../linuxppc_2_4.export
>         bk export . ../linuxppc_2_4.export

bzip2 -dc patches-are-better.bz2 | patch -p1 -E -s

I know it doesn't push BitKeeper, but patches are certainly fine for
bandwidth problems. That is, if you leave off the header crud that
BitKeeper likes to create. I think you'd save bandwidth actually.

I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to use BitKeeper. I'm doing some
work with the Linux kernel, but I can't make it public yet and
getting the paid license would be quite a pain. (while the actual
dollar amount isn't likely an issue, getting a purchase order
and MIS approval would be an awkward procedure -- around here
ClearCase rules)


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: ppc @ ppc.bitkeeper.com

[Larry McVoy]

> > We're working getting BK/web up and we are also making changes so that you'll
> > be able to do this:
> >
> >         bk clone http://ppc.bitkeeper.com/linuxppc_2_4
> >
> > which will work through firewalls.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Encouraging people to violate security?

A) It's not a security violation in any way.  Not unless running netscape
   or IE is a security violation.  Lots of people are behind firewalls
   that shut down everything except port 80.  What do you want us to do?
   Mount some windmill tilting campaing against the people managing the
   firewalls?  What if they have legit reasons for doing it that way?
   Most people are grateful that we make this easy for them, what's your
   complaint with that?  And is this the place to discuss it?

B) *We* don't care what port you use.  We support http access, ssh access,
   rsh access, email access, bkd access, local file access, you name it,
   we support it.  So whining about it here like we are encouraging security
   problems when there are no security problems, and the restrictions are
   not of our doing is a little annoying.  Take it up with IBM, not us, we
   didn't cause the problem, we just provide a solution.

> bzip2 -dc patches-are-better.bz2 | patch -p1 -E -s
>
> I know it doesn't push BitKeeper, but patches are certainly fine for
> bandwidth problems.

We're not here to push BitKeeper, we're just providing a service.  If you
like running patch and fixing up the patch problems, be my guest.  Patch
doesn't always work, but BK patches _always_ work.  If BK patches don't
work, that's a bug, if patch patches don't work, that's a limitation of
diff/patch.  We're agnostic about what you use.

> I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to use BitKeeper. I'm doing some
> work with the Linux kernel, but I can't make it public yet and
> getting the paid license would be quite a pain. (while the actual
> dollar amount isn't likely an issue, getting a purchase order
> and MIS approval would be an awkward procedure -- around here
> ClearCase rules)

So don't use it then, no one is asking you to do so.

Let's get something perfectly clear: we provide free use of BK as a service.
If you want to use, that's great, we appreciate the bug reports and the
good will.  If you don't want to use it, that's fine too, but I fail to see
why the rest of the list needs to know that.

Let's make that really clear: if there is some reason that you can't
use BK and you want that fixed, take it up with support@bitmover.com or
sales@bitmover.com, not the ppc lists.  Nobody on those lists wants to
see an endless discussion of the pros and cons of BK.

If I seem a little touchy about this, I am.  I've been burned before by
being dragged into this sort of discussion and I end up looking some rabid
marketing person.  I'm not interested in doing that, and I'm positive that
the ppc lists aren't interested in having that happen here, so I think
everyone would appreciate it if the BK merits (or lack thereof) were
discussed elsewhere.  I'm quite happy to address any of your concerns,
or anyone else's concerns, in private email, but let's keep the list
focussed on PPC.

Thanks,
--
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: ppc @ ppc.bitkeeper.com

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 02:13:00PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

> bzip2 -dc patches-are-better.bz2 | patch -p1 -E -s

Troy B. wrote a script that makes patches of the BK tree to the
latest Linus tree merged in.  I should go and bug him about moving
that over to source.mvista.com or something :)
They're currently at http://penguinppc.org/~hozer/patches, iirc

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/