On Aug 26, 2009, at 21:08 , Nick Quaranto wrote:
Just a note here: I haven't added support for the legacy indexes for
in
Gemcutter. Since you need at least RubyGems 1.3.3 to use the gem
plugins, I
figured supporting the legacy ones shouldn't be a priority as the
project
started. Currently
Nick,
On Aug 26, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Nick Quaranto wrote:
1) Redirect gems.rubyforge.org to gemcutter.org for gem serving.
(all gems
are currently mirrored from RubyForge and are ready for consumption)
RubyForge currently has a pretty good mirror system for supporting Gem
downloads. I
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Nick Quaranton...@quaran.to wrote:
Please note I'm not suggesting that all of these happen *this instant*, I
just want to open up discussion about making this happen and what would be
involved. Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated.
To be honest, this
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Ryan Davisryand-r...@zenspider.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 2009, at 14:57 , John Barnette wrote:
Nick,
On Aug 26, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Nick Quaranto wrote:
1) Redirect gems.rubyforge.org to gemcutter.org for gem serving. (all
gems
are currently mirrored from
Chad, I'll admit, the website as it is right now sucks, this is not a
finished project yet. There's a full fledged redesign in progress that is
being pushed out to: http://staging.gemcutter.org Check out the preview post
here too:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Nick Quaranton...@quaran.to wrote:
I'll take a look into CloudFront, I just haven't yet since the need
hasn't come up. My main concern is keeping the gap between publishing
a gem and being able to install it low.
CloudFront is a transparent CDN, you only need
On Aug 26, 2009, at 17:16 , Luis Lavena wrote:
(possibly) even better, I'm pretty sure we could get Tom convinced
that
gemcutter is a good idea and we should migrate rubyforge to it.
The thing is that RubyForge is more than just gems.
I wasn't suggesting that gemcutter take over
On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:57 PM, John Barnette wrote:
Nick,
On Aug 26, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Nick Quaranto wrote:
1) Redirect gems.rubyforge.org to gemcutter.org for gem serving.
(all gems
are currently mirrored from RubyForge and are ready for consumption)
RubyForge currently has a pretty good
On Aug 26, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Nick Quaranto wrote:
As for the costs, I'd like to approach a non-profit organization such
as RubyCentral to help deal with them. I originally sent an email out
to them first about supporting the project a few weeks ago, but I
haven't heard anything back. I'm
On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:22 PM, Tom Copeland wrote:
On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:57 PM, John Barnette wrote:
Nick,
On Aug 26, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Nick Quaranto wrote:
1) Redirect gems.rubyforge.org to gemcutter.org for gem serving.
(all gems
are currently mirrored from RubyForge and are ready for
So I'm trying out: http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/calc5.html
14mb/day, is less than 1GB a month. For S3 that's less than $1/month just
for data transfer out, and a little more with CloudFront. It doesn't seem
like this would be a problem unless if we were in the range of
terabytes/month. As
Just a note here: I haven't added support for the legacy indexes for in
Gemcutter. Since you need at least RubyGems 1.3.3 to use the gem plugins, I
figured supporting the legacy ones shouldn't be a priority as the project
started. Currently I'm only generating and serving up the modern indexes
On Aug 27, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Nick Quaranto wrote:
Just a note here: I haven't added support for the legacy indexes for
in
Gemcutter. Since you need at least RubyGems 1.3.3 to use the gem
plugins, I
figured supporting the legacy ones shouldn't be a priority as the
project
started.
13 matches
Mail list logo
