On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> With master.kernel.org down, there is not much change from yesterday and >>>> I cannot publish the resulting linux-next tree anyway, so there is no >>>> tree today. >>>> >>> What about github ? gitorious ? >>> >>> If you fork linus' tree on github, you should still be within the disk >>> usage limit. My linux-2.6-next.git bare tree mirror is about 303MB. >> >> Well... that would be helpful if all of the trees that linux-next >> pulls from are hosted somewhere other than kernel.org as well. A lot >> of them are not, which means you would get an incomplete linux-next >> tree at best. Probably better to just wait. >> > That's just insane... It's insane for people to host their git trees for kernel work on kernel.org? > git is distributed, but still used centrally. Kernel development > should just not be impacted by such issues. No... git is still used in a distributed fashion. It's just that most maintainers host the public trees that people pull from on kernel.org. Some have pushed public trees to github or elsewhere, but not all of them. josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
