On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:43 AM, Satish Balay wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On Feb 7, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Sean Farley wrote: > > >> > > >>> I'm sure Jed (or Matt in his prime) could have run over to IIT and > restarted the machine in less time than this :-) > > >>> > > >>> Sure, and like everybody else they would have had to wait outside > until they had keys :-) > > >> > > >> Those guys are very resourceful; I cannot image a simple locked > door would be an issue for them. > > >> > > >> Barry > > >> > > >> Besides who the heck set up the machine so it cannot be started > remotely? Should have used an Apple machine :-) > > > > > > > > > It was a human error [when you tell something to shutdown - it should > not automatically restart]. > > > > > > yeah - if we installed server infrastructure with remote admin feature > > > - then it could have been powered up remotely [from the remote > > > management console or something like that..] > > > > Isn't that a basic Linux thing, start on LANS signal. > > > > > > > > looks like folks [Sean,Matt,Barry] are happy with bitbucket. > > > > Not me. I'm not happy with it. I prefer the PETSc machine, bitbucket > is just a back up when the PETSc machine goes down. If the PETSc machine is > back up then we switch the master repository back. > > > > What is wrong? Not enough freedom to mess up the machine? I don't feel > like pushing 2 places. > > Push two places manually? WTF, presumably Mecurial is feature rich > enough that you could automate the whole process of "pushing to 2 places"? > > Ok, I need to understand more how bitbucket handles a hierarchy of > different repositories There is only a 1-level hierarchy based on a top level account. Sean created 'petsc' for our stuff. We can create many, so that we have 'petsc-release', 'petsc-private', etc. if we want. Of course, I want traditional hierarchy, and will file a feature request. > with different permissions There is an access control list for each repository, with read/write/admin permissions. In addition, you can mark each repo public or private. > in different parts Did not understand this part of the question. > and have a hierarchy of managers of the repositories I don't know why we need a hierarchy of managers, but we can have individual managers with admin priv. > and adding new repositories. You can create new repos or import existing ones. > I don't want to just have haphazard creation of new repositories without a > proper relationship between them. > They are grouped by top level account Matt > Barry > > > Barry > > > > > Matt > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > > > Sean - you'll have to transfer all repos and keys to the new site. > > > > > > For now - I've removed petsc-dev and BuildSystem from petsc.cs.iit - > > > and will plan a phased shutdown of the machine - as soon as you can > > > find new home for all repos. > > > > > > Satish > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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/20120208/ccee29e6/attachment.html>