> Its mostly a question of ongoing management. > Apache+Linux+$SQLSERVER+etc can certainly handle our needs (which, > lets face it, aren't really that complex), but we don't have a > full-time management staff for our server. By leaning on Google (or > Amazon, Rackspace, etc) we don't have to worry about the day-to-day > details of running the site. How many of the recent PyPI downtimes > have just required bouncing Apache? Wouldn't it have been nice if a > site engineer got paged within 60 seconds and had it dealt with soon > after instead of having to wait for one of the PyPI volunteers to > notice and get to a computer? It isn't a question of capability, it > is just where are our man-hours best spent: simple maintenance or > actually improving the site?
Still, there is significant, fundamental opposition to binding PyPI to any vendor tightly in terms of implementation. This applies to GAE, and (probably less strongly) to S3. I believe that Antoine just voices a wide-spread concern (rather than him representing a singular opinion). Therefore, I will personally refrain from endorsing any port of PyPI to GAE. If people think it would be worthwhile, they could still start a port; if they wanted that port to become pypi.python.org eventually, they'd have to convince Richard Jones, me, or the PSF board. I know that without an advanced prototype, I won't be convinced. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
