2009/8/14 Matthew Revell <[email protected]>: > I think that's the hard part. A manually updated system status page > could quickly become inaccurate. Can't we automate it somehow?
Automation is very nice, but this spec has been waiting a long time, and there have been multiple unexpected critical outages in the interim. They confuse users and make the system look more flaky than it actually is. What I'm suggesting is a page that describes only known critical outages. We don't need automation to add things to that page because by definition if they're known, they have someone's attention. We just need to add this small step of updating the page to the critical outage procedure. Similarly, when we either fix or downgrade the issue, we just need to update it to say so. > I wonder, also, if we might want to host it on a server completely > unrelated to LP. ISPs and web hosts often have an off-site status page > because, in some cases, what's taking everything else down may affect > the status page. That's a good point. Robert raised the same issue on irc. A wordpress blog might be ok, for example. Or a google docs page. -- Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/> _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
