Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Apr 2003 17:30:21 -0700 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: BK->CVS, kernel.bkbits.net |
| |
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 01:52:30PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Followup to: <20030417162723.GA29380@work.bitmover.com> > By author: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > It's back up, and the CVS server up to date with the 2.4 2.5 kernels as > > of a few minutes ago. The CVS server is at > > > > :pserver:anonymous@kernel.bkbits.net:/home/cvs > > > > There are linux-2.4/ and linux-2.5/ subdirectories there (should this go in > > a FAQ someplace or does nobody except Andrea care?). > > It definitely should.
OK, so how about this? I assume you manage DNS for kernel.org, right? How about a DNS entry for cvs.kernel.org -> 64.241.2.13? If you ever find a machine to host this then you already own cvs.kernel.org and you can just reset the address. By the way, I think the bandwidth is pretty darn low, after all that fuss almost nobody seems to use this, it just gives them warm fuzzies to know that the history has been captured in an open format which is worth it if it means no more BK flame wars, eh?
Then whoever maintains the kernel FAQ these days could add something like this:
SCM access to the kernel trees: -------------------------------
Linus started using an SCM (source code management) tool called BitKeeper in February of 2002. Since BitKeeper isn't free software, he does not require that anyone else use BitKeeper, he continues to accept patches just like he always did. The only difference is that information about who did what, and maybe why they did it, is recorded and is useful for learning the source base, tracking down bugs, etc. Many, but not all, of the core developers have switched to using BitKeeper because it makes their life easier in various ways.
Some people haven't switched because BitKeeper isn't free software and they feel uncomfortable using non-free software as part of working on the kernel. That's fine, it's an explicit goal of both Linus and the BitKeeper developers that nobody is required to use BitKeeper to work on the kernel. Some senior developers have decided they'd rather not use BitKeeper, Alan Cox being a good example. That's not a problem, the BitKeeper developers worked with Linus to streamline the importing of traditional patches so that anyone can work in any way they see fit.
If you want to use BitKeeper (http://www.bitkeeper.com) then the official trees are maintained on linux.bkbits.net - to get a particular release try this:
bk clone bk://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.4
There was a fair amount of fuss amongst the free software purists, over the fact that a lot of information that was available in BitKeeper was lost when Linus provided the traditional tarball releases and patch updates. Flame wars happened and when the dust settled, the BitKeeper folks built a BitKeeper to CVS gateway which captures the bulk of the information (as of this writing on April 19th 2003 there are 9,311 snapshots captured). If you would prefer to get your source with 100% God fearing, politically correct, open source, fully buzzword enabled software, then you can do this:
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.kernel.org:/home/cvs co linux-2.4
As releases progress, the release numbers will change so some day you might say
bk clone bk://linux.bkbits.net/linux-4.2 or cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.kernel.org:/home/cvs co linux-4.2
-- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/
| |