Re: [Savannah-users] Why sv.gnu.org and sv.nongnu.org ??

[Bob Proulx]

James Cloos wrote:
> Karl Berry wrote:
> > As far as I know, shorter to type in address bars and email, etc.
> > That is all.

Hmm...  Okay.  I guess that does make the most sense.  I am sure you
are right.

I myself hadn't thought people would be typing in those names.  Which
is why I had asked.

When I grep the Apache config for sv.gnu.org I see it as a ServerAlias
a redirect config but only in the http port 80 config and not the
https port 443 config.  Typing in sv.gnu.org as a URL hits the
redirector leaving you at the canonical URL.  Good.  It prevents
people bookmarking the non-canonical location.

When I grep for sv.nongnu.org I find nothing.  Using it must be
hitting the default server entry.  But since there are different
addresses for savannah.gnu.org versus savannah.nongnu.org the default
server works out to be the correct desired server.  But it doesn't
redirect.  Given that it exists I think that is a flaw that it doesn't
behave the same as sv.gnu.org does.  I will leave it as is long enough
for people who are poking at it to see this but will plan to add a
redirector for it in a day or so too.

Therefore having sv.gnu.org I guess is a useful shorthand for getting
to the web page.  In most browsers Control-L sv.gnu.org ENTER would
hit the redirect and arrive.  So I guess that is useful.  And the
sv.nongnu.org URL will do that too after a small tweak.

> > Maybe they should be CNAMEs.  I don't know why they're not.
> > Oh.  Because of the subdomains.  Duh.

I don't see a reason they still couldn't be CNAMEs.  I am probably
missing something obvious.  But CNAME or A records either way are
about six of one and a half dozen of the other for this.  Either way.
About the same effect in this case.  My question all about why there
was a record there at all.

Note that while names below such as vcs.sv.gnu.org are in the dns zone
controlled by savannah hackers that the sv.gnu.org name itself in the
domain above controlled by the FSF admins.  My question was mostly
academic.  Can't change it regardless of the answer.  Only the FSF
admins could do that.

> They could be DNAMEs.  That would make each heirarchy under sv identical
> to what is under savannah.

This might be one of the very few places where a DNAME could be used
beneficially.  But we have gotten along for so long without them that
they aren't required.  Plus DNAMEs have a reputation for breaking some
software in various corner cases and so people have been avoiding
them.  Since they aren't required no one wants to push the limits
being the test subject to try them out.

Currently the DNS zone is included in both savannah.gnu.org and in
sv.gnu.org subdomains.  Therefore there is only one file location with
the zone records.  It is included so appears in both domains
identically with no extra effort.  Same thing for the nongnu.org
domain.  And so DNAMEs aren't needed.  I will vote to keep avoiding
them for at least a while longer. :-)

Bob