Hi there,
Index already contains the SHA1 sums of _indexed_ artifacts (if available).
It all depends only on how up-to-date index is (is just released artifacts
might not be on index yet...)

HTH,
~t~


On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Bernd Eckenfels <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hello Jason,
>
> a somewhat related question. would it be possible to publish a SHAxSUM
> file of all the artifacts of the repository? I figured this would be much
> more efficient than walking any of the repos to validate local mirrors. It
> also can be used to detect modifications to released artifacts without the
> need of guessing PGP keys.
>
> Maybe the index process already has that information available...
>
> Bernd
>
> --
> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
> Von: "Jason van Zyl" <[email protected]>
> Gesendet: ‎27.‎08.‎2014 14:11
> An: "Maven Developers List" <[email protected]>
> Betreff: [Proposal] New Mirror for Maven Central
>
> Hi,
>
> As part of our discussions with Sonatype I would like to propose a new
> location for our agreed upon 3rd party mirror for Maven Central.
>
> About a year ago a friend of mine, Matt Stephenson, who was at Google (he
> now works at Square), asked if there was a way to get a copy of Maven
> Central for Google to do some analysis and prototyping. I always have an
> up-to-date copy of Maven Central and what they wanted to do sounded
> interesting and generally useful so I said sure and that I would drop off a
> drive for Matt at the SF office. Instead they suggested that I use the new
> Cloud infrastructure and setup the mirroring on one of their machines and
> so we did that. Over the last year I've worked with Matt and met more
> people at Google and ultimately they offered to pay for any of the machines
> and bandwidth required to house the mirror of Maven Central. Why would
> Google pay for this? They have made some developer tools based on the data,
> they have done their own security analysis for the protection of their own
> systems that use Java, and they want to leverage a near-copy of Maven
> Central for systems like Google App Engine. The cost of storage is nominal
> (40 dollars a month for 2TB) and if the cost of the whole system is less
> than one FTE (150-200k/year) it's not even going to register.
>
> I think Google is generally to be thought of as a good OSS partner and
> they have supported many programs and efforts for many years. I asked them
> a few months ago if they would support the Maven PMC in having a long-term
> location for a mirror of Maven Central for our purposes and they liked the
> idea. It's mutually beneficial.
>
> So I would like to propose that we use this infrastructure for the place
> for our agreed upon 3rd party mirror location. A few weeks ago I showed
> this to Hervé to see what he thought and if it was even a good idea to
> propose and we both agreed it would be. I relinquished my admin access to
> Hervé in the console so, as the Maven PMC Chair,  he can provide access to
> anyone who wants to check it out. I believe it would be a great place to do
> validation and an easy way for us to provide anyone with copies of Maven
> Central who wish it.
>
> I think it would be a relatively simple change where we can give Sonatype
> a key, and then the push moves content to this new infrastructure.
>
> Matt also setup an experiment to push the content of Maven Central to
> Google's CDN which has an HTTPS/S3 interface which you can see here[1]. So
> the equivalent access to Ibiblio can be provided by Google. From here we
> can also manage a push to Ibiblio to maintain consistency.
>
> I encourage folks to get access and take a look around, but I think it's a
> nice offer from Google.
>
> [1]: https://central-repo.storage.googleapis.com
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> http://twitter.com/takari_io
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
> or who has said it,
> not even if i have said it,
> unless it agrees with your own reason
> and your own common sense.
>
>  -- Buddha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to