Hi,
We (Adrian, Phillip and myself) are working on moving the SqueakSource server to a new (faster) machine.
For that, we would like to have source.squeak.org to point to the new server. ( 130.92.65.106 )
One, it's nice for testing the virtual host setup, and then I think it would be good to have squeaksource like squeakmap under a *.squeak.org name. We will keep both the kilana.unibe and the squeaksource.com adresses active, too.
Is it possible to set this domain up?
Marcus
I'm certainly happy to set you up with some squeak.org hostname but I wonder if this wouldn't be even more confusing than the current situation. I would expect to find the source of Squeak itself at source.squeak.org rather than that of external packages. Right now the putative location (or at least future location) for the Squeak source is source.squeakfoundation.org and really I think now should have been made source.squeak.org from the beginning. What do you think?
Is there perhaps an alternative squeak.org hostname that you would also consider appropriate? I'm thinking but haven't come up with anything yet.
Ken
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 15:04 +0100, Marcus Denker wrote:
Hi,
We (Adrian, Phillip and myself) are working on moving the SqueakSource server to a new (faster) machine.
For that, we would like to have source.squeak.org to point to the new server. ( 130.92.65.106 )
One, it's nice for testing the virtual host setup, and then I think it would be good to have squeaksource like squeakmap under a *.squeak.org name. We will keep both the kilana.unibe and the squeaksource.com adresses active, too.
Is it possible to set this domain up?
Marcus
On 1/12/06, Ken Causey ken@kencausey.com wrote:
I'm certainly happy to set you up with some squeak.org hostname but I wonder if this wouldn't be even more confusing than the current situation. I would expect to find the source of Squeak itself at source.squeak.org rather than that of external packages.
In the light of the debates around 'forking', the move to a split between "package maintainers" and "distribution builders", etcetera, I don't think it is too important where packages are hosted. Nor do I think that we can really keep up a sensible distinction between "external" and "internal" packages - look at Monticello, RefactoringBrowser, OmniBrowser, Traits, etcetera. So I'm not really subscribing to that argument to keep two repositories.
source.squeakfoundation.org was setup because we thought we might need a different authorization protocol, or whatever - to give us the freedom to hack the sources. However, as far as I know (I'm not too deeply involved with that squeaksource instance), this hasn't happened. 'inbox' and 'v39a' could run just as well on kilana.unibe.ch as on box2.squeakfoundation.org.
with an eye towards network effects and reduced maintenance load on the community, it might be wise to merge both setups and call the result 'source.squeak.org'...
On 12.01.2006, at 23:33, Cees De Groot wrote:
On 1/12/06, Ken Causey ken@kencausey.com wrote:
I'm certainly happy to set you up with some squeak.org hostname but I wonder if this wouldn't be even more confusing than the current situation. I would expect to find the source of Squeak itself at source.squeak.org rather than that of external packages.
In the light of the debates around 'forking', the move to a split between "package maintainers" and "distribution builders", etcetera, I don't think it is too important where packages are hosted. Nor do I think that we can really keep up a sensible distinction between "external" and "internal" packages - look at Monticello, RefactoringBrowser, OmniBrowser, Traits, etcetera. So I'm not really subscribing to that argument to keep two repositories.
source.squeakfoundation.org was setup because we thought we might need a different authorization protocol, or whatever - to give us the freedom to hack the sources. However, as far as I know (I'm not too deeply involved with that squeaksource instance), this hasn't happened. 'inbox' and 'v39a' could run just as well on kilana.unibe.ch as on box2.squeakfoundation.org.
with an eye towards network effects and reduced maintenance load on the community, it might be wise to merge both setups and call the result 'source.squeak.org'...
Yes... could be... One problem is that there are a lot of packages on squeaksource, so the "official" ones would get lost soon. But that could be solved by having tags...
Whatever we decide on, it's the next step, I think.
First get the kilana setup moved to the new server, then we see further. For us it would help to have another domain for testing our apache setup before moving squeaksource.com over.
Marcus
On 1/13/06, Marcus Denker denker@iam.unibe.ch wrote:
For us it would help to have another domain for testing our apache setup before moving squeaksource.com over.
If that's all you need, just mail me the new IP address and I'll setup sourcetest.cdegroot.com or something like that :-)
On 13.01.2006, at 11:10, Cees De Groot wrote:
On 1/13/06, Marcus Denker denker@iam.unibe.ch wrote:
For us it would help to have another domain for testing our apache setup before moving squeaksource.com over.
If that's all you need, just mail me the new IP address and I'll setup sourcetest.cdegroot.com or something like that :-)
And why not source.squeak.org ?
I kind of like the idea to have all our servers available there, e.g. I could not remember the old squeakmap domain (with the /sm), kilana:8888 sucks, too, and squeaksource.com I personally don't like either. It's not commercial, for one. It makes squeaksource look slow (it proxies everything over a slow connection, and squeaksource is the name of the program, so squeaksource.something would be surely *about* squeaksource.
All I want to have a nice canoncical domain name for the community squeaksource server, under squeak.org.
*After* having that, we can discuss about merging the second server (the foundation setup) into that. But why not step-by-step? Surely merging will not be done till after 3.9a is finished, or at least not *now*. So waiting for that would mean that nothing could be done for at least some weeks.
I don't see any reason for not doing this. We need to make sure that we can make small steps.
Marcus
On 1/13/06, Marcus Denker denker@iam.unibe.ch wrote:
If that's all you need, just mail me the new IP address and I'll setup sourcetest.cdegroot.com or something like that :-)
And why not source.squeak.org ?
Err... let's keep the discussion clear here. What do you want? A plan for merging the two servers including a strategy for the eventual domain name, or a domain name to test your new server setup?
The latter I can give you on a whim, the former needs discussion and until we have consensus on it I don't think it is smart to just start allocating squeak.org names.
Regards,
Cees
On 13.01.2006, at 11:50, Cees De Groot wrote:
On 1/13/06, Marcus Denker denker@iam.unibe.ch wrote:
If that's all you need, just mail me the new IP address and I'll setup sourcetest.cdegroot.com or something like that :-)
And why not source.squeak.org ?
Err... let's keep the discussion clear here. What do you want? A plan for merging the two servers including a strategy for the eventual domain name, or a domain name to test your new server setup?
I want to be able to *do*, not talk. A strategy for a server migration and eventual domain name means that: Nothing will happen.
The latter I can give you on a whim, the former needs discussion and until we have consensus on it I don't think it is smart to just start allocating squeak.org names.
So.... maybe that's not how other people feel, but I personally think that this way you will make sure that people stop doing things.
At least, I feel that way for me personally.
Marcus
On 1/13/06, Marcus Denker denker@iam.unibe.ch wrote:
I want to be able to *do*, not talk.
Markus, 21 hours ago you send a mail saying that you'd like to see the new server running as source.squeak.org.
In response, people raise valid points. Squeak.org is a community resource, and we need to be careful with it. We can give out every hostname only once.
So, I think that a bit of discussion about how we are going to do it is just very sensible. I am a doer, but that is something entirely different from just blindly storming forward.
On 13.01.2006, at 12:09, Cees De Groot wrote:
On 1/13/06, Marcus Denker denker@iam.unibe.ch wrote:
I want to be able to *do*, not talk.
Markus, 21 hours ago you send a mail saying that you'd like to see the new server running as source.squeak.org.
In response, people raise valid points. Squeak.org is a community resource, and we need to be careful with it. We can give out every hostname only once.
And I responded to that valid points: Yes, we should merge the two setups.
So the goal is, I guess we agree, to have one squeaksource setup for squeak (both projects and image). We have all other community services as sub-domains of squeak.org, so source.squeak.org seems (for my dumb brain) the obvous solution.
We have just put a day of effort into the new setup, that has eaten up our time, we will *not* be able to merge the two servers now (because of time, beacause a better point in time would be after 3.9a is finished).
So we can now either not have source.squeak.org until the merge is done sometime in the future, or take this item from the TODO by already doing it.
So, I think that a bit of discussion about how we are going to do it is just very sensible. I am a doer, but that is something entirely different from just blindly storming forward.
But you need to take care not to allienate people with saying no to small doable tasks by suggesting to make the task bigger (and thus make them unmanagable).
Marcus
On 1/13/06, Marcus Denker denker@iam.unibe.ch wrote:
And I responded to that valid points: Yes, we should merge the two setups.
I'm quite positive that we'll reach the conclusion that merging is a sensible thing to do and that source.squeak.org is a sensible name for the new squeaksource server.
But don't you think it's polite to wait what other have to say on the matter?
Besides, adding a new virtual host name to an apache server shouldn't take more than an edit and a reload. 1 minute tops. Certainly if you have already tested the setup with a dummy vhost name. So I don't think there are big risks involved with just doing a bit of due dilligence here...
For what it's worth my opinion is that IF in the end the two community Squeak Source servers are merged (and I'm not personally convinced that is the best way to go, but I'm not strongly opposed to it either), THEN it makes sense to use the hostname source.squeak.org for it.
Now, today, I'm quite happy to setup sourcetest.squeak.org. In fact, I've just done that:
+sourcetest.squeak.org:130.92.65.106
Use it if you like, ignore it if you prefer.
I think we need to first concentrate on speaking with those people that have an interest in the two servers and seeing if anyone has any objections to the merge. If for any reason we decide against the merge then I think it would be a mistake to have assigned the source.squeak.org hostname to the external packages server. And as Cees has said you can go ahead and do everything you need to do test and confirm the setup, even use it, using the sourcetest hostname for now and when and if the merge occurs changing the hostname will be a minor job compared to the rest of it.
Ken
box-admins@lists.squeakfoundation.org