>That policy ensures a lot of experienced folks will pass on reporting >bugs and submitting patches. Is it any wonder the program is having >stability problems?
To clarify: the tool with stability problems is *NOT* the tool with this contribution policy. apt-cacher-ng is the tool we've been discussing in this thread with stability issues, it is ~a decade old. apt-cacher-ultra is a ground up reimagining that is primarily focusing on being robust and being able to operate when upstream repos are under DDoS, like happened with Ubuntu a few weeks ago. Ultra doesn't have the track record yet to say if it's more or less stable, it's only 2 weeks old. So far it's been working fine in my environment of ~200 client nodes in 5 environments. Sean On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 7:17 PM Jeffrey Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 4:54 PM Andy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 03:17:34PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > > > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 08:51:34AM -0600, Sean Reifschneider wrote: > > > > https://github.com/linsomniac/apt-cacher-ultra > > > > > > Very interesting, thanks, I shall take a look. > > > > I've had 5 minutes worth of looking and I have to say the contribution > > policy is giving me some concern. TL;DR: they ONLY accept AI-assisted > > contributions. > > > > > https://github.com/linsomniac/apt-cacher-ultra/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md > > That policy ensures a lot of experienced folks will pass on reporting > bugs and submitting patches. Is it any wonder the program is having > stability problems? > > > It's probably this or switching to a general HTTP proxy (e.g. Squid) so > > I guess I'll still try it out, but… > > Jeff > >
