Hi, On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > Yes. It is looking for trouble by creating a wonderful single point of failure. Which happened to have failed. If I were to be really paranoid, I would no longer trust any code on git.kernel.org unless all the current repository were to be destroyed, and re-uploaded by their owner. - Arnaud >> 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
