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.
Before you can decide on how to do this, you're going to have to make a few choices:
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.
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'.
The current situation is slightly more nuanced than that. The Chinese owners want to shut down the blast furnaces at the site, possibly as early as next week. Once the furnaces are shut down they cannot be restarted, so that would be the end of the site as a steel production factory, and it's the only one the UK has that can process iron ore, so it's considered critical.
The government's long term plan is to take the site into public ownership, then try to find private sector interest to take on part of it, but short term just to keep it alive long enough to be able to keep it running, with the happy side effect that a large number of jobs are not lost.
None of this is to say the situation with with the water companies is acceptable. Frankly they should already be publicly owned.
I manage all my homelab infra stuff via ansible and run services via kubenetes. All the ansible playbooks are in git, so I can roll back if I screw something up, and I test it on a sacrificial VM first when I can. Running services in kubenetes means I can spin up new instances and test them before putting them live.
Working like that makes it all a lot more relaxing as I can be confident in my changes, and back them out if I still get it wrong.
I assume they mean 12% per annum, compounded daily, but I'd prefer your reading of it.
Even in cases like this justice must not just be done, but be seen to be done. It seems her guilt has been established, which is good; her sentencing comes next. It seem unlikely that there are any mitigating circumstances to reduce the punishment, but that judgement must be seen to be fair. The French citizenry are not renouned for their forebearance in the face of injustice, so I would be tempted to trust their system for now.
ETA: In fact, it seems like the punishment has already been decreed: five years ineligibility to run for office, four years in prison (two suspended), and a fine. That puts her out of tbe running for president, and likely tarnishes her enough to keep her down even after 2030.
That's just crazy talk. If we don't listen to the billionaires the line might not keep going up quite so fast. For the purposes of this argument, please ignore TSLA, the climatologists obviously got to that one.
The rules also ban the use of facial recognition equipment in public places such as hotel rooms, public bathrooms, public dressing rooms, and public toilets.
Why was there facial recognition, or any other sort of camera, in those places in the first place? Has something been mangled in the translation, is it a fuss about nothing, or were organisations genuinely going "hmm, we need to check your face before you can use the restrooms"?
I didn’t vote for the guy and even I didn’t even imagine the level of destruction and chaos that’s come so far.
It's been pretty astonishing. I was expecting a lot of vindictive attacks on those who he though had wronged him, and an element of tearing down anything that might regulate his buddies' industries, but this is a level or 5 beyond that. It's like their trying to go as fast as possible, doing as much damage as possible before someone stops them. In fact, I suspect it's exactly that, they know that some form of opposition will eventually form, and are trying to get as much done as possible before that happens. I imagine they can't believe their luck at how long it's taking.
Why allow depreciation? You wouldn't have bought it with the reduced functionality, and it's going to cost you time and effort to remove it and replace it with something else. Inflation will reduce the value more than enough.
From the article:
The 10-person team is trapped at the remote Sanae IV base, which is on a cliff edge about 105 miles inland from the ice shelf, by encroaching ice and weather as the southern hemisphere winter sets. Teams overwintering at the base are typically cut off for 10 months at a time. Sources told South Africa’s Sunday Times that the only way to leave the base now was via emergency medical evacuation to a neighbouring German base about 190 miles away.
As far as I can see it's currently the end of the Antarctic summer, winter is just starting, and will likely last until October. It sounds like something went badly wrong with both the psychological screening of the team members, and the decision for the ice breaker that delivered them to leave before the situation was resolved.
You... you don't? Surely there's some mistake, have you checked down the back of your cupboard? Sometimes they fall down there. Where else do you keep your internet?
Appologies, I'm tired and that made more sense in my head.