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 :)
