Last year I reported on the state of the website:

There was a little bit of public discussion, and I privately got
approximately one zillion offers to host the site or otherwise help with
it. Thank you to everybody who responded.

Here's an update on what happened since then:

 - we now have a small group of maintainers able to triage incoming bug
   reports and patches, and generate some fixes. Thanks especially to
   Jean-Noël Avila, Pedro Rijo, and Samuel Lijin for their work over the
   past year.

 - we resolved most of the performance issues. These were partly due to
   some inefficient database queries, but mostly it was resolved with
   lots and lots of caching.

   The main problem, it turned out, is just that we get a _lot_ of hits.
   Like 5-6 million requests per day (that's individual HTTP requests;
   analytics report that we get close to 200,000 unique visitors on any
   given weekday).

   Details on the caching are in the architecture document below.

 - the site remains a rails app. This is probably overkill, but it was
   the path of least resistance to keep it one. Converting to a static
   site would require at least some grunt-work, but also figuring out
   some solution for the site-wide search. There's no immediate plan to
   move to anything else.

 - previously the site was being paid for by GitHub (and was tied to
   GitHub's Heroku account). We could have continued that indefinitely,
   but I wanted to move it to a community-owned account. That happened
   (details in the architecture document).

   Rather than ask for money from GitHub or elsewhere to cover hosting
   costs (which would have been easy -- we had quite a few offers!), I
   instead approached the companies whose services we're using to host
   the site and asked for direct sponsorship. Every one of them was
   happy to oblige, and Heroku in particular was helpful with migrating
   the site to the new account. So we're currently receiving free
   service from Heroku, Cloudflare, and Bonsai.

 - I've written up a few documents about how the site is organized. One
   higher-level page on the site for bug reporters, etc:

   and one more detailed architecture document:

So at this point I think the site is in reasonably good shape going
forward. One of the long-standing issues is that the design is not very
responsive, and looks bad on phones and tablets. Jason Long, who did
much of the original site design, is working on a visual refresh that
should fix this and update some of the messier and outdated parts of the
CSS and related tooling. The plan is to have the refresh running
alongside the production site soon, so that we can gather feedback and
iterate from there.


Reply via email to