> On July 29, 2014, 6:55 p.m., Jake Farrell wrote:
> > +0, I dont really think that this is necessary and will add overhead 
> > (especially with AURORA-616), thoughts on opening this up on the dev@ list 
> > to a wider discussion?
> 
> Bill Farner wrote:
>     +1 to hashing this out in a dev@ discussion.  I've had a nervous twitch 
> about traditional maven-style dependencies for a long time, and i'd love to 
> know if i'm just wearing a tinfoil hat :-)
> 
> Tobias Weingartner wrote:
>     +1 to moving in this direction.  -1 on the "will add overhead" part.  
> SSL/HTTPS does adds any negligible overhead at best:
>     
>     https://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/06/25/overclocking-ssl.html
>     
>
> 
> Jake Farrell wrote:
>     the overhead i was refering to was not for ssl/https interaction but the 
> project overhead of managing/verifying all packages used are available at 
> jcenter

That's been verified in the Testing Done section (deleted all cached 
dependencies and verified that the build still works).


- Kevin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/24063/#review49076
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 29, 2014, 12:14 p.m., Kevin Sweeney wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/24063/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 29, 2014, 12:14 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Jake Farrell and Bill Farner.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AURORA-620
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-620
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Use JCenter over HTTPS instead of Maven Central
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   build.gradle 5919a984ae8d5067f72e6efe50ad590405e779eb 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24063/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> rm -fr ~/.gradle/caches
> ./gradlew build
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kevin Sweeney
> 
>

Reply via email to