On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 7:58 PM Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 06:31:16 -0600: > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 2:18 AM Daniel Sahlberg < > daniel.l.sahlb...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Den mån 3 jan. 2022 kl 06:27 skrev Daniel Shahaf < > d...@daniel.shahaf.name>: > >... > > >> I don't see the problem. We point folks on users@ to git/hg if those > > >> suit their needs better, so what's stopping us from pointing our users > > >> to an external list archive? > > > > > DShahaf is very Right. There are a dozen third party services supporting > > the Apache Subversion community. There really isn't a reason to fear this > > one. Especially when the Foundation has a contractual relationship with > > them. > > That's not what I said. You might've been thinking of Daniel Gruno. > There are a lot of Daniels around, but you basically said that right above in the part I quoted. "I don't see the problem. ..." If you meant marc.info by "an external list archive" rather than lists.a.o, then sure: your sentence reads quite differently :-) [DSahlberg:] > > > I'm just worried that we point someone to an external archive, start to > > > accumulate a lot of links and suddenly the external party lose > interest in > > > maintaining the site and we end up in a situation where we have a lot > of > > > links that suddenly are 404. Similar to what happened to svn.haxx.se a > [me:] > > Key difference: lists.apache.org compared to svn.haxx.se > > > > Should the Foundation ever terminate its agreement with the lists.a.o > > service provider, we can provide redirection since we "own" the hostname > > and can run a redirection service. Please don't worry about 404s. We have > > spent the past couple years building redirection rules for > > mail-archives.a.o, over to lists.a.o. Those are still being > > tweaked/modified, as we speak. That same kind of effort will apply to any > > lists.a.o turn-off, should it ever happen one day. > > Are lists.a.o permalinks permanent, as the name implies? Yes. > Even if they are, you're ignoring the points about lists.a.o requiring > javascript and requiring being online to resolve links. It's well Not ignoring it. Just don't have an answer. (but I did re: lists.a.o permanence) > within this PMC's mandate to decide to use an archive whose links are > resolvable offline (which entails usability and privacy wins) and > Of course. I'm trying to be helpful here, not antagonistic, Daniel. Cheers, -g
