Re: Linux 2.5.71

Re: Linux 2.5.71

[Larry McVoy]

Linus said:
> I think I'll call this kernel the "sticky turtle", in honor of that 
> historic "greased weasel" kernel, and as a comment on how sadly dependent 
> I've become on the daily BK snapshots. It's been too long since 2.5.70.

I think more releases are good but for the snapshot people...

There are multiple options:

	bk pull bk://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5
	cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@kernel.bkbits.net:/home/cvs co linux-2.5

and Ben Collins is working on a bkSVN gateway (it's actually a
BK->CVS->SVN but whatever) so that will be an option soon as well.  Huh,
while I'm thinking about it since we're hosting the CVS tree there is no
good reason not to host the SVN tree as well, I have to believe that SVN
uses less bandwidth than CVS (please, say it's so).  Ben, send me or Davem
an ssh2 key and we'll set you up with an account on kernel.bkbits.net.
This isn't some advertising ploy so feel free to make some DNS entry which
points there, like svn.kernel.org, and then there is no BK in the picture.
HPA can help you with that.  In fact, hpa, weren't we going to make a 
cvs.kernel.org?  If so, how about pointing that at kernel.bkbits.net for
the time being and then if someone steps forward to host that you can
just change the DNS entry?
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

Re: Linux 2.5.71

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <20030615002153.GA20896@work.bitmover.com>
By author:    Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> HPA can help you with that.  In fact, hpa, weren't we going to make a 
> cvs.kernel.org?  If so, how about pointing that at kernel.bkbits.net for
> the time being and then if someone steps forward to host that you can
> just change the DNS entry?
> 

Seems reasonable.  I have been up over my ears for a while, and quite
frankly I'm trying to spend some of my Linux time working on my real
Linux projects, too...

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[Ben Collins]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:55:47PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 
> > It seems to me that kernel.org is the right place but if hpa is too busy
> > (which I understand and respect) then we need to come up with some sort of
> > domain which is unused, simple, and memorable.  I'm aware of the levels of
> > distrust people have for bitmover but we could pay for it and run the DNS
> > servers and let some set of community agreed on people manage the DNS entries
> > if that makes people feel safe.
> > 
> 
> I have no problem setting up CNAMEs in kernel.org if people are OK with
> it.  Setting up actual servers is another matter.

CNAMES on kernel.org would be perfect.

-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/

SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[Larry McVoy]

I'm happy to buy, register, and manage a neutral domain if someone can
think of one.  Obviously, one of the BK based domains is not going to 
cut it because people will think we're using it to advertise how BK is
going to rule the world, etc. etc.  The only really neutral domain I 
have is reggaeware.com and I'm not sure the world is ready to fill their
CVS needs from cvs.reggaeware.com, eh?  

If someone can think of a cool name so we could have

    bk.coolname.com
    cvs.coolname.com
    svn.coolname.com
    etc

and it isn't taken, send me a suggestion and I'll get it set up and point it
at the right places.  

It seems to me that kernel.org is the right place but if hpa is too busy
(which I understand and respect) then we need to come up with some sort of
domain which is unused, simple, and memorable.  I'm aware of the levels of
distrust people have for bitmover but we could pay for it and run the DNS
servers and let some set of community agreed on people manage the DNS entries
if that makes people feel safe.

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:13:53AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to:  <20030615002153.GA20896@work.bitmover.com>
> By author:    Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > 
> > HPA can help you with that.  In fact, hpa, weren't we going to make a 
> > cvs.kernel.org?  If so, how about pointing that at kernel.bkbits.net for
> > the time being and then if someone steps forward to host that you can
> > just change the DNS entry?
> > 
> 
> Seems reasonable.  I have been up over my ears for a while, and quite
> frankly I'm trying to spend some of my Linux time working on my real
> Linux projects, too...
> 
> 	-hpa
> -- 
> <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
> "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
> Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[H. Peter Anvin]

Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that kernel.org is the right place but if hpa is too busy
> (which I understand and respect) then we need to come up with some sort of
> domain which is unused, simple, and memorable.  I'm aware of the levels of
> distrust people have for bitmover but we could pay for it and run the DNS
> servers and let some set of community agreed on people manage the DNS entries
> if that makes people feel safe.
> 

I have no problem setting up CNAMEs in kernel.org if people are OK with
it.  Setting up actual servers is another matter.

	-hpa

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[Larry McVoy]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:55:47PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 
> > It seems to me that kernel.org is the right place but if hpa is too busy
> > (which I understand and respect) then we need to come up with some sort of
> > domain which is unused, simple, and memorable.  I'm aware of the levels of
> > distrust people have for bitmover but we could pay for it and run the DNS
> > servers and let some set of community agreed on people manage the DNS entries
> > if that makes people feel safe.
> > 
> 
> I have no problem setting up CNAMEs in kernel.org if people are OK with
> it.  Setting up actual servers is another matter.

I think CNAMEs are all that we need now.  BitMover and Penguin Computing
will host it for the time being and if we cross over to the dark side
someone else can step forward and host it and all you need to do is redo
the CNAMEs.  

We do need to advertise the "URLs" for the CVS tree and the SVN tree and 
the BK trees as well I suppose.  Is that a Gooch/FAQ thing?  Richard, you
still out there?
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[Andrea Arcangeli]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:38:16PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:55:47PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > 
> > > It seems to me that kernel.org is the right place but if hpa is too busy
> > > (which I understand and respect) then we need to come up with some sort of
> > > domain which is unused, simple, and memorable.  I'm aware of the levels of
> > > distrust people have for bitmover but we could pay for it and run the DNS
> > > servers and let some set of community agreed on people manage the DNS entries
> > > if that makes people feel safe.
> > > 
> > 
> > I have no problem setting up CNAMEs in kernel.org if people are OK with
> > it.  Setting up actual servers is another matter.
> 
> I think CNAMEs are all that we need now.  BitMover and Penguin Computing
> will host it for the time being and if we cross over to the dark side
> someone else can step forward and host it and all you need to do is redo
> the CNAMEs.  
> 
> We do need to advertise the "URLs" for the CVS tree and the SVN tree and 
> the BK trees as well I suppose.  Is that a Gooch/FAQ thing?  Richard, you
> still out there?

this sounds fine to me. especially I can't think of an easier name to
remeber than cvs.kernel.org/svn.kernel.org ;)

thanks for taking care of those bits too.

Andrea

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <20030618011455.GF542@hopper.phunnypharm.org>
By author:    Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > 
> > I have no problem setting up CNAMEs in kernel.org if people are OK with
> > it.  Setting up actual servers is another matter.
> 
> CNAMES on kernel.org would be perfect.
> 

So right now cvs, svn and bk all -> kernel.bkbits.net?

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[Larry McVoy]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:11:07PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to:  <20030618011455.GF542@hopper.phunnypharm.org>
> By author:    Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > > 
> > > I have no problem setting up CNAMEs in kernel.org if people are OK with
> > > it.  Setting up actual servers is another matter.
> > 
> > CNAMES on kernel.org would be perfect.
> > 
> 
> So right now cvs, svn and bk all -> kernel.bkbits.net?

We only need cvs and svn; bk is hosted at linux.bkbits.net.

If someone else wants to either host or provide a hot backup for either of
these, that's cool with us.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[Larry McVoy]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:28:14PM +0200, Thunder Anklin wrote:
> Salut,
> 
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:40:10 +0200, Larry wrote:
> > If someone else wants to either host or provide a hot backup for either of
> > these, that's cool with us.
> 
> Is it also OK for you to provide public read-only rsync access to the
> CVS repository? That would be a nice thing to have, I suppose...

hpa already does, it's on kernel.org.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[Ben Collins]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:11:07PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to:  <20030618011455.GF542@hopper.phunnypharm.org>
> By author:    Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > > 
> > > I have no problem setting up CNAMEs in kernel.org if people are OK with
> > > it.  Setting up actual servers is another matter.
> > 
> > CNAMES on kernel.org would be perfect.
> > 
> 
> So right now cvs, svn and bk all -> kernel.bkbits.net?

And for those that want to switch their SVN repo to the new URL:

# cd linux-2.5-bksvn
# svn switch --relocate svn://kernel.bkbits.net/linux-2.5/trunk \
	svn://svn.kernel.org/linux-2.5/trunk

For 2.4, it should be obvious.

-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes:

>I'm happy to buy, register, and manage a neutral domain if someone can
>think of one.  Obviously, one of the BK based domains is not going to 
>cut it because people will think we're using it to advertise how BK is
>going to rule the world, etc. etc.  The only really neutral domain I 
>have is reggaeware.com and I'm not sure the world is ready to fill their
>CVS needs from cvs.reggaeware.com, eh?  

>If someone can think of a cool name so we could have

>    bk.coolname.com
>    cvs.coolname.com
>    svn.coolname.com

According to InterNIC, hereisthesource.org is free... :-)

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen          INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de        +49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services 
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[Bill Davidsen]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:11:07PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Followup to:  <20030618011455.GF542@hopper.phunnypharm.org>
> > By author:    Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > > > 
> > > > I have no problem setting up CNAMEs in kernel.org if people are OK with
> > > > it.  Setting up actual servers is another matter.
> > > 
> > > CNAMES on kernel.org would be perfect.
> > > 
> > 
> > So right now cvs, svn and bk all -> kernel.bkbits.net?
> 
> We only need cvs and svn; bk is hosted at linux.bkbits.net.

Why would you *not* have bk.kernel.org as a CNAME? For ease of memory,
etc, it makes sense to do that. If someone knows about cvs.kernel.org,
they are more likely to guess the bk address. And vice-versa, of course.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[Bill Davidsen]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:11:07PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Followup to:  <20030618011455.GF542@hopper.phunnypharm.org>
> > By author:    Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > > > 
> > > > I have no problem setting up CNAMEs in kernel.org if people are OK with
> > > > it.  Setting up actual servers is another matter.
> > > 
> > > CNAMES on kernel.org would be perfect.
> > > 
> > 
> > So right now cvs, svn and bk all -> kernel.bkbits.net?
> 
> We only need cvs and svn; bk is hosted at linux.bkbits.net.

It still makes sense to have a CNAME for bk.kernel.org to match the
others. Much easier to remember and guess; if you know one you can intuit
the others.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: SCM domains [was Re: Linux 2.5.71]

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <Pine.LNX.3.96.1030619163732.12043A-100000@gatekeeper.tmr.com>
By author:    Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:11:07PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > Followup to:  <20030618011455.GF542@hopper.phunnypharm.org>
> > > By author:    Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
> > > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have no problem setting up CNAMEs in kernel.org if people are OK with
> > > > > it.  Setting up actual servers is another matter.
> > > > 
> > > > CNAMES on kernel.org would be perfect.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > So right now cvs, svn and bk all -> kernel.bkbits.net?
> > 
> > We only need cvs and svn; bk is hosted at linux.bkbits.net.
> 
> It still makes sense to have a CNAME for bk.kernel.org to match the
> others. Much easier to remember and guess; if you know one you can intuit
> the others.
> 

I just added bk.kernel.org -> linux.bkbits.net.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64