notabot

On the other hand, the enemy of my enemy is my friend

Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.

That doesn't mean you can't work with them on a common cause, and maybe even show them the benefits of your way if thinking, but don't get caught out when they turn on you.

i'd keep it or sell it to a collector most likely.

Or jump in the air and spread yourself across the scenery if you're one of the 'lucky' ones who finds shell that is still viable.

That, or ICE kidnap him when he tries to return because he's 'obviously' in league with the gang.

Before you can decide on how to do this, you're going to have to make a few choices:

Authentication and Access

Theres two main ways to expose a git repo, HTTPS or SSH, and they both have pros and cons here:

• HTTPS A standard sort of protocol to proxy, but you'll need to make sure you set up authentication on the proxy properly so that only only thise who should have access can get it. The git client will need to store a username and password to talk to the server or you'll have to enter them on every request. gitweb is a CGI that provides a basic, but useful, web interface.

• SSH Simpler to set up, and authentication is a solved problem. Proxying it isn't hard, just forward the port to any of the backend servers, which avoids decrypting on the proxy. You will want to use the same hostkey on all the servers though, or SSH will refuse to connect. Doesn't require any special setup.

Replication

Git is a distributed version control system, so you could replicate it at that level, alternatively you could use a replicated file system, or a simple file based replication. Each has it's own trade-offs.

• Git replication Using git pull to replicate between repositories is probably going to be your most reliable option, as it's the job git was built for, and doesn't rely on messing with it's underlying files directly. The one caveat is that, if you push to different servers in quick suscession you may cause a merge confict, which would break your replication. The cleanest way to deal with that is to have the load balancer send all requests to server1 if it's up, and only switch to the next server if all the prior ones are down. That way writes will alk be going to the same place. Then set up replication in loop, with server2 pulling from server1, server3 pulling from server2, and so on up to server1 pulling from server5. With frequent pulls changes that are commited to server1 will quickly replicate to all the other servers. This would effectively be a shared nothing solution as none of the servers are sharing resources, which would make it easier to geigraphically separate them. The load balancer could be replaced by a CNAME record in DNS, with a daemon that updates it to point to the correct server.

• Replicated filesystem Git stores its data in a fairly simple file structure, so placing that on a replicated filesystem such as GlusterFS or Ceph would mean multiple servers could use the same data. From experience, this sort of thing is great when it's working, but can be fragile and break in unexpected ways. You don't want to be up at 2am trying to fix a file replication issue if you can avoid it.

• File replication. This is similar to the git replication option, in that you have to be very aware of the risk of conflicts. A similar strategy would probably work, but I'm not sure it brings you any advantages.

I think my prefered solution would be to have SSH access to the git servers and to set up pull based replication on a fairly fast schedule (where fast is relative to how frequently you push changes). You mention having a VPS as obe of the servers, so you might want to push changes to that rather than have be able to connect to your internal network.

A useful property of git is that, if the server is missing changesets you can just push them again. So if a server goes down before your last push gets replicated, you can just push again once the system has switched to the new server. Once the first server comes back online it'll naturally get any changesets it's missing and effectively 'heal'.

TLDR: touch -d "@$(stat -c %W "FILENAME")" "FILENAME"

You were going along the right lines, but I think you got yourself tangled somewhere. The documentation about time formats in the man pages isn't great, so you didn't miss much there!

For a lot of utils that take a time format using '@' is the most reliable and precice, so that's what I'm using here.

The stat command can return the creation (birth) time of the file as seconds past the epoch, and we use -c %W to get it to return only that, so we don't need to use grep to parse it.

I hope that's reasonably clear, but let me know if I can explain it better.

Parks are great, but unless they're directly outside the houses where I can keep an eye on what's happening they're not as safe or convenient. Being able to send the kids into the garden to run off some energy whilst I'm in the house doing something, and being reasonably confident that they're safe is a huge benefit.

That's certainly not impossible with a bit of sensible planning around how housing is laid out, putting clusters of housing directly around a shared green space, but it is rather challenging to retrofit in existing conurbations, and impossible in more spread out communities. The American style of huge featureless lawns surrounding the house right up to the property boundary are pretty awful, but the more European style of a bit of lawn surrounded by flower beds and maybe trees is rather better.

If you have kids It's helpful to have an open, flat area for them to run around on. It doesn't need to be (just) grass, but that's probably the most robust, and least likely to have sharp surprises, option.

You get a full eye roll and groan for that.

We didn't steal the balls, but where computers were back to back we'd swap the mice over. Cue much confusion for the next class when the pointer seemed to move on it's own. Fun times.

Wh.. what are you doing step-car?

Cute cat, but I think I can see the mental screen saver running in there. It's the one where an image just gently bounces around the screen.

There is a very significant difference between a, roughly, 1 in 1000 risk, and them being 'cancer ovens'. Had your comnent been less hyperbolic and a bit more along the lines of "there is a known risk level to using a CT scanner" no (ne would be disagreeing.