Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:38:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Matthias Urlichs <email@example.com> writes:
> > > The choice is to either restrict the required client-side fanciness to
> > > what most of our mirrors are willing to accept, or go without mirrors
> > > (OK, OK ... fewer mirrors anyway), which is something I don't think we'd
> > > want.
> > The whole point of SCC was to go without mirrors.
> *No*, the point is to not require all mirrors to carry all ports.
I'm sorry, I was over-brief. My understanding is the same as what you
report here. What I'm saying is that a complaint that SCC is too
heavy to carry should be met with "so don't carry it". We can't solve
every problem. I think separating the ports to a different server
allows mirrors one easy solution. If they want other solutions
(because, say, they want to "carry everything" and then complain that
"everything" is too heavy) then they will need to implement them