On 14.07.2004, at 17:40, Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:48 AM Subject: ASF Repository, closer.cgi and Depot
...snipped a lot of good points...
Hmm, it seems to me that infra@ or mirrors@ (is that a list) probably have
views on this. (But then, we probably don't want 4 lists on here. :-)
mirrors@ is a list but mainly for mirror maintainers. There's no one on mirrors@ who isn't sub'ed to infra....
I suspect their views would include what you suggest, that distribution might
save some nomimal (c.f. artifact sizes) bandwidth savings & give some CPU
saving, but it'd be at significant loss of 'control' (of well behaved
clients). Central control over this seems the most appealing.
Since I doubt the CPU cycles are worth saving (or the script would've been
optimised), could we not just change the script to check for some header
from the client, and return XML or some structured text, for non-human
browsers. [BTW: viewcvs seems to do this nicely, returning the file if
non-human and the presentation is human (as browser identifies).
This sounds promising. You have central control, you get the geoip-mapping stuff for free and the CPU cycles as well as the bandwidth for (XML-ized) responses are a no-brainer in this case.
just my 2 cents...
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature