On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Ryan Davis<ryand-r...@zenspider.com> wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2009, at 14:57 , John Barnette wrote: > >> Nick, >> >> On Aug 26, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Nick Quaranto wrote: >>> >>> 1) Redirect gems.rubyforge.org to gemcutter.org for gem serving. (all >>> gems >>> are currently mirrored from RubyForge and are ready for consumption) >> >> RubyForge currently has a pretty good mirror system for supporting Gem >> downloads. I expect Tom could get your some figures on how much bandwidth >> they use. If Gemcutter was the default RG source, how would you deal with >> this? Are you planning on eating S3 costs yourself? Are you thinking about >> using something like CloudFront, since S3 itself isn't strictly a CDN? > > (possibly) even better, I'm pretty sure we could get Tom convinced that > gemcutter is a good idea and we should migrate rubyforge to it. >
The thing is that RubyForge is more than just gems. Take as example the installers for Ruby for Windows: http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=167&release_id=38052 I believe that GemCutter API and interface has potential, but as was previously mentioned, the support and cost of backing it up raises some concerns. Taking in consideration there are lot of gems with more than 10K of downloads, the incurring charge of running that form S3 and adding CloudFront CDN on top will need to be payed my someone. -- Luis Lavena AREA 17 - Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
