PPC bk repos reorg

PPC bk repos reorg

[Larry McVoy]

The hosting service has evolved.  You need to be running the latest
and greatest to make the following work.  The old port number based
anon access will continue for now but will go away, switch your parent
pointers please.

Summary of changes:

a) The admin login is "ppc.adm", it used to be "ppc".
b) The ssh login is "ppc", it used to be "ppc.<repo>"
c) URL changes
   Old anonymous:
	bk://ppc.bitkeeper.com:5000..5004 these are going away
   New anonymous:
	bk://ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_2
	bk://ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_4
	etc.
   Old ssh:
	bk://ppc.linux_2_2@bitkeeper.com
   New ssh:
	bk://ppc@ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_2
	bk://ppc@ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_4

Notes:
    * The domain name has changed, it is now ppc.bkserver.net.  Please use
      the new name, the old one will go away.
    * You may figure out that we are just aliasing ppc.<bunch of domains>
      to the same place and decide that bk://ppc@bkserver.net/linux_2_4 is
      shorter.  That will work until the day that we are too loaded to host
      all this on one machine and we change dns to point ppc.bkserver.net
      to some other machine.  So use the full name, you only have to do it
      when you set up a repo and then BK remembers it.
--
---
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 bk repos reorg

[Paul Mackerras]

Larry McVoy writes:

> The hosting service has evolved.  You need to be running the latest
> and greatest to make the following work.  The old port number based
> anon access will continue for now but will go away, switch your parent
> pointers please.

Note that this means that you will probably have to download a new
version of bitkeeper and install it.  If you have an older bk then you
may get a confusing and uninformative error message. :)

Paul.

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

Re: PPC bk repos reorg

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 07:28:52PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:

> c) URL changes
>    Old anonymous:
> 	bk://ppc.bitkeeper.com:5000..5004 these are going away
>    New anonymous:
> 	bk://ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_2
> 	bk://ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_4
> 	etc.
>    Old ssh:
> 	bk://ppc.linux_2_2@bitkeeper.com
>    New ssh:
> 	bk://ppc@ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_2
> 	bk://ppc@ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_4

And, er by request on IRC, 'linux_2_2' is still Linus' 2.2 tree, and
'linux_2_4' is still Linus' 2.4 tree.  Our trees are 'linuxppc_2_4',
'linuxppc_2_4_devel' and 'linuxppc_2_2'.

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

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

Re: PPC bk repos reorg

[Larry McVoy]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 08:07:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 07:28:52PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> > c) URL changes
> >    Old anonymous:
> > 	bk://ppc.bitkeeper.com:5000..5004 these are going away
> >    New anonymous:
> > 	bk://ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_2
> > 	bk://ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_4
> > 	etc.
> >    Old ssh:
> > 	bk://ppc.linux_2_2@bitkeeper.com
> >    New ssh:
> > 	bk://ppc@ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_2
> > 	bk://ppc@ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_4
>
> And, er by request on IRC, 'linux_2_2' is still Linus' 2.2 tree, and
> 'linux_2_4' is still Linus' 2.4 tree.  Our trees are 'linuxppc_2_4',
> 'linuxppc_2_4_devel' and 'linuxppc_2_2'.

Yes, I should have said that.  All 5 are there, as you can see if you take
a peek at http://ppc.bkserver.net/

By the way, I snarfed a pile of domains for this: bkserver.{net,com},
bkmaster.{net,com}, bkprojects.{net,com}, bkbits.{net,com}.

I'd like to keep the .com for commercial hosting in case anyone wants
to give us huge piles of money (yeah, right, but you never know).
But I could use

	bk://ppc@ppc.bkbits.net/linux_2_2 instead of
	bk://ppc@ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_2

It's a whole 2 letters shorter.  If I can ever get bk.net/bk.com that's
the obvious thing but the chances of that are right up there with me
winning the lottery.  If anyone stumbles across a really short, approrpiate
domain, let me know.  The nicest thing sourceforge ever did for me is
to get sf.net :-)

Anyway, all of the above addresses currently point at the same place.
If you all say "bkbits" then I'll reserve bkbits.net for the hosting
service.  I'm a big fan of less is more and that's the shortest I could
find.
--
---
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 bk repos reorg

[Gavin Hemphill]

Larry I just tried out the anonymous access using the new syntax and found that (of course) it won't work through our firewall.  I'd had a hole punched in the firewall to allow pull's etc. but it's
tied to port numbers.  Do you have any suggestions on how to handle this with the reorganized parents.
	G++

Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> I'd like to keep the .com for commercial hosting in case anyone wants
> to give us huge piles of money (yeah, right, but you never know).
> But I could use
>
>         bk://ppc@ppc.bkbits.net/linux_2_2 instead of
>         bk://ppc@ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_2
>
> It's a whole 2 letters shorter.  If I can ever get bk.net/bk.com that's
> the obvious thing but the chances of that are right up there with me
> winning the lottery.  If anyone stumbles across a really short, approrpiate
> domain, let me know.  The nicest thing sourceforge ever did for me is
> to get sf.net :-)
>
> Anyway, all of the above addresses currently point at the same place.
> If you all say "bkbits" then I'll reserve bkbits.net for the hosting
> service.  I'm a big fan of less is more and that's the shortest I could
> find.

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

Re: PPC bk repos reorg

[Larry McVoy]

For now use the old port numbers those should still work while I go poke
at this.

On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:43:36AM -0300, Gavin Hemphill wrote:
> Larry I just tried out the anonymous access using the new syntax and found that (of course) it won't work through our firewall.  I'd had a hole punched in the firewall to allow pull's etc. but it's
> tied to port numbers.  Do you have any suggestions on how to handle this with the reorganized parents.
> 	G++
>
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to keep the .com for commercial hosting in case anyone wants
> > to give us huge piles of money (yeah, right, but you never know).
> > But I could use
> >
> >         bk://ppc@ppc.bkbits.net/linux_2_2 instead of
> >         bk://ppc@ppc.bkserver.net/linux_2_2
> >
> > It's a whole 2 letters shorter.  If I can ever get bk.net/bk.com that's
> > the obvious thing but the chances of that are right up there with me
> > winning the lottery.  If anyone stumbles across a really short, approrpiate
> > domain, let me know.  The nicest thing sourceforge ever did for me is
> > to get sf.net :-)
> >
> > Anyway, all of the above addresses currently point at the same place.
> > If you all say "bkbits" then I'll reserve bkbits.net for the hosting
> > service.  I'm a big fan of less is more and that's the shortest I could
> > find.

--
---
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 bk repos reorg

[Kenneth Johansson]

I can't even use the old way from work but I have done some testing with bk
from home in aticipation of the 4xx updates that has been RSN the last few
month.

The revtool is a really nice tool to find out what has changed and once I
figured out that I needed to also do a get command everything that I need
works. BUT one thing I did not like is the fact that a grep -r now catch not
only the source but also the file in the repository directory. Is there a way
to work with bk that the source is not in the same place as the bk files?


Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> For now use the old port numbers those should still work while I go poke
> at this.
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:43:36AM -0300, Gavin Hemphill wrote:
> > Larry I just tried out the anonymous access using the new syntax and
> > found that (of course) it won't work through our firewall. I'd had a
> > hole punched in the firewall to allow pull's etc. but it's tied to
> > port numbers. Do you have any suggestions on how to handle this with
> > the reorganized parents.

--
Kenneth Johansson
Ericsson Business Innovation AB   Tel: +46 8 404 71 83
Viderögatan 3                     Fax: +46 8 404 72 72
164 80 Stockholm                  kenneth.johansson@inn.ericsson.se

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