On Thursday 01 April 2010 05:39:27 David Nicol wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> > The main point here is that we can't use 20 inodes per distribution.
>
> so don't. How much reengineering would be needed to keep CPAN in a
> database instead of a file system?
It
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:39:27AM -0400, David Nicol wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> > The main point here is that we can't use 20 inodes per distribution.
>
> so don't. How much reengineering would be needed to keep CPAN in a
> database instead of a file syst
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:50:49PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> * The need for widespread mirroring is less significant than it was in
> years past. (Also using git as the inter-mirror transport of source files
> means there'll be much less traffic between mirrors. Effectively only
> the diffs betwee
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Bunce [mailto:tim.bu...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bunce
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 5:51 PM
> To: cpan-workers; module-authors@perl.org
> Subject: Distributing the CPAN
> * cpanminus already supports installing from a git repo.
>
> * Over time the
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Ask Bj?rn Hansen wrote:
Everyone who doesn't run mirrors says "oh, who cares - it doesn't bother me".
Some of us who does run mirrors say "actually, that sort of thing is important and
an actual issue.".
Others reply "then you're doing it wrong". But nobody came with
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Tim Bunce wrote:
Random thoughts...
* If you squint a little you can view git as a database with excellent
replication support.
* cpanminus already supports installing from a git repo.
* For backwards compatibility a simple perl web server could provide a
classic CPAN http
On Apr 1, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
> Yes, I was envisaging something like gitPAN. Though if this took off
> then moving the tarball->git import logic to the PAUSE server would
> probably be a good idea.
/me stashes these ideas away for PGAN…
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Ask Bj?rn Hansen wrote:
I can't believe I'm doing this, but ...
:-) All for entertainment's sake...
The main point here is that we can't use 20 inodes per distribution. It's Just
Nuts. Sure, it's only something like 400k files/inodes now - but at the rate
it's going
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Ask Bj?rn Hansen wrote:
Talk = ZzZz.
Code = Interesting.
Deployment = Useful.
Please. The talk serves to gauge interest before I waste any time
implementing a solution that's already been rejected out of hand. As I've
mentioned repeatedly I already use rsync, albeit on mu
