[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

[Matthew Knepley]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 9:13 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> > The thread has become too deep for me to read, hence the top posting.
> >
> > Barry's question is the right one: What do we gain by changing?
> >
> >   1) Reliability and Availability
> >
> >    Barry, you should know that this crap about petsc.cs being backed up
> is farcical. We
> >    would have the same situation we had with the first 10 years of PETSc
> history again.
> >    BB is definitely more reliable in terms of backups, uptime, and
> connectivity (SSH issues).
> >
> >    2) Better management support
> >
> >    The infrastructure for supporting user permissions is better on BB.
> We don't edit a file,
> >     calling a script someone hacked together. We have accounts, and when
> accounts are
> >     shut down they go away. A user can manage his SSH key independently
> of us.
> >
> > Those for me make it a slam dunk. However, I will ask the question in
> reverse: What do we
> > give up?
>
>    I decent way of hierarchically organizing our repositories. Tell me how
> to do this on bitbucket and you have your slam dunk.


Mailing BB.

   Matt


>
>   Barry
>
>
> > I think the only thing we give up is the security blanket of being able
> to log in
> > ourselves and mess with a machine directly.
> >
> >     Matt
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:15 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Even if you were right about this specific issue (which you are not)
> it doesn't matter. All you've done is removed the need for a releases
> subdirectory. What about tutorials subdirectory, externalpackages
> subdirectory, anothercoolthingwethinkofnextweek subdirectory.
> > >
> > > Why does the *server* have to have the subdirectory?
> >
> >   Because I want to have a bunch of repositories organized in a
> hierarchical manner. You response seems to be:
> >
> > 1)   no you don't want that   or
> >
> > 2)  you should put them all in one giant repository   or
> >
> > 3) have them in different bitbucket accounts (like a petsc account and a
> externalpackages account) that have nothing to do with each other.
> >
> >   Just admit that not supporting a directory structure at bitbucket is
> lame and stop coming up with lame reasons why it is ok. Then get bitbucket
> to add this elementary support and we'll be all set.
> >
> >   Barry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > $ hg clone bb://petsc/anothercoolthing
> subdirectory-that-can-suck-eggs/anothercoolthing
> > >
> > > Please explain to me the real reasons bitbucket is better than
> petsc.cs.  and stop rationalizing around bitbuckets weaknesses. Every
> choice has some tradeoffs and I haven't heard much about bitbuckets
> advantages so I am confused why you guys are so in love with it. (Well I
> understand Sean's reasons, being pretty lazy myself :-)).
> > >
> > > I'll let Jed explain about forks and have the reverse look-up (how
> many people have forked petsc). For me, it's drop-dead simple management.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
> experiments lead.
> > -- Norbert Wiener
>
>


-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120210/f79f6e46/attachment.html>