--- Gio 12/4/12, drew <[email protected]> ha scritto: ... > > > > Because we just have no basis for rejecting mirrors. > > Sure we do, groups; particularly non-profits turn down > offers from commercial operators all the time. Lets be > clear the SF offer is not all about contributing to > the project it is also to some degree about their > commercial concerns - it is their business model. >
Bandwidth costs and yes there is a business component in that but it's not something I would personally be worried about as long as it's not the only way to download a release. I will put it this way: we cannot stop people from mirroring OpenOffice and making money out of the bandwidth or some added feature. If SF wants to go further and coordinate with us instead of doing it without asking then I simply don't see it as a bad thing. It is not uncommon to have the option of downloading software using Ad supported services under the expectation that it may be a bit faster or more stable. ... <snip> I will cut a lot of stuff.. but I will say I basically do agree, and as I wrote before I am not aware of any decision concerning ditching mirrorbrain. <snip> > Well, if that is the case then how do you reconcile SF - in > the case of extensions/templates it was easy, they are not > official Apache releases. > > In the case of the binary releases I guess it is the same > thing then, certainly there is plenty of reason to believe > that a good portion of Apache does not consider any binary > release as official - just a > convenience, which is fine - but then we are back to the > question of why > not use the system already in place - mirrorbrain? > I think they are official: I understand we will go through the process of signing them. In any case, I think the downloading details is something that has to be coordinated with infra. SF has been very proactive here but that shouldn't stop mirrorbrain and the normal Apache mirrors to do their part. Pedro.
