Francois Gouget wrote:
[snip]
> Why do I see discrepencies between ursula and winehq.com? On
> ursula it says 'The latest Wine is 20000109' and on winehq it says 'The
> latest Wine is 20000227'. For some time was not getting the latest
> wine Weekly News and it may be because my bookmark was pointing to
> ursula. By the way, today the latest news on ursula is 2000-9 while
> it's 2000-10 on Wine HQ.
Good question... The main site's pages are updated from CVS every hour
or so on tiepmiep. I guess that ursula isn't updating as frequent. The
source-browsing is manual labour for each release and a bit work, so I
guess that it takes some time if noone updates it.
> [...]
> I really would really not worry about Microsoft or VA Linux
> doing bad things. The worse they can do is pull the plug which would
> only force us to move our stuff elsewhere. But in any case we would keep
> mirrors anyway so this would mostly mean redirecting www.winehq.com to
> another machine.
> What I'm more worried about with SourceForge is their hardware
> capacity. They have put a lot of hardware into it but I've seen
> mentionned recently that they have been growing at 15% per week. That's
> 1433% per year. Their resources may not follow the same path.
Sure, they have installed a lot of hardware. I have just installed a
machine put together from every leftover I could find... I surely can
put together a better machine or go to other networks given the $$.
However, it doesn't matter at all if you only have *one* major site.
Look at Samba.org; they have mirrors all over the world. That is the
only way to guarantee that a site is more or less accessible all the
time. Just moving to another machine is not the way to go, but "go out
and multiply" should be the motto.
> In fact we don't have to (and probably should not) move
> everything to SourceForge:
> - the web site, without the application database and bug list, and the
> CVS server are the first candidates for moving to SourceForge because
> they are the two most visible components
The web-site and CVS can be duplicated easily. You can just do CVSup...
Anywhere you can build a mirror for this.
[snip]
> - the bug list need not move although it may mean less maintenance work
Indeed. Just leave it where it is. It is not heavily used anyway at the
moment.
> - the application database need not move either
The app-database can be made distributed if you introduce
master(rw)/slave(ro) mirroring. This shouldn't prove to be too hard to
implement with PostGreSQL and a couple of intelligent scripts.
> - SourceForge provides their own CVSWeb so there is no need to move
> that (as long as we do a CVSup between sites)
And so can anybody else. The scripts are freely available.
Greetings Bertho
