Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Monday 14 March 2005 18:37, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > This point is *not* about supported architectures, only about
> > architectures carried by the primary mirror network. We did consider
> > having a single set of requirements for both "release architectures" and
> > "primary mirror architectures", and the structure of the announcement
> > might still reflect that, but I couldn't justify using "percent market
> > share" as a straight criterion for release architectures.
> Release should be governed by the amount of developers, if the can
> keep up, if the buildd works and so on. *Quality*
> Mirroring should be governed by the amount of users (as in downloads),
> the amount of traffic for an arch. No point having more mirrors than
> users. *Quantity*
> There might be 100 firms downloading to their proxy and maintaining 1
> million s390 systems (VMs) with 10 million users. Does s390 then get
> kicked out of the release because they download efficiently, only 100
> downloads instead of 10 million?
To highlight Steves most important sentence:
| This point is *not* about supported architectures, only about
| architectures carried by the primary mirror network.
And if s390 only needs 100 downloads per year, the don't need to be
distributed on the mirrors, but can easily download from a central site.
What a long ways to "Yes, you are right."
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15