intrigeri: > sajolida wrote (14 Feb 2016 15:01:17 GMT) : >> intrigeri: >>> sajolida wrote (13 Feb 2016 12:49:46 GMT) : >>>> B. People with no JavaScript, wget, etc. It seems like we need the >>>> minimal DNS pool if we want to support these anyway. >>> >>> Sure, we will need this pool anyway. >>> >>> But the less we rely on that DNS pool, the better: the less load we >>> put on it (i.e. the less users we send to it), the more reliable it >>> is, and the less daily maintenance effort is required. This is >>> especially true until we have recruited very fast and reliable mirrors >>> to put into this pool. >>> >>> Now, indeed it may be more worth our time to go after such new >>> mirrors, than writing code to workaround the lack thereof :) > >> :) What would this be? > >> A. Do stats on faster mirror as reported by check-mirrors. > > Yes, we can do that for our current set of mirrors. > >> B. Do stats on mirrors with less incidents in the mirrors Git repo. > > Yes. > >> or you are thinking about recruiting new mirrors we don't yet have in >> the pool? > > Also this, yes. (This is why I've started the discussion about dropping > the requirement for OpenPGP communication with mirror operators.) > >> To do this I can dig check-mirrors reports from my trash (1069!) and >> compile some stats over the last two years. > > I don't think it's worth the effort to go back in the past: IMO for > (A) we can just check the _current_ state of our mirrors. But if > you're excited by this idea and wants to put extra effort into it, > well, the better :)
Ok, I'll happily skip this then :) _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to [email protected].
