* Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote: > The scripts would still not have been released. Due to the realy > wastefull interface buildd.d.o has having them spread around would put > a too large drain on buildd.d.o and you would get the same thing that > happended with the BTS and bugwatcher. The interface gets blocked or > changed to prevent this kind of drain. Erm, the request was from someone associated w/ buildd.d.o, aiui. I imagine he would known about or figured out such load concerns, and besides, if it was on buildd.d.o there might not have been such load, or a reduced amount anyway. > That is the non "bad air" reason for not releasing the scripts and > that stays valid as long as Ryan doesn't cooperate or we fire up a > proxy that exportds a better interface. pffft, that reason wasn't ever valid. It's pure BS with the specific intent of trying to *look* like you're being all nice and innocent when, in reality, you're being just as childish as any 2 year old. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature