On 08/07/14 08:32, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Ian Booth <[email protected]> wrote: >> It wasn't mean to be funny. I'm unsure why it's a bad argument. It's quite >> prudent to ensure that critical infrastructure on which our development >> depends >> meets expectations with regard to uptime, reliability etc (a case in point >> being >> the recent issue with an out of date certificate or so I was told). Sorry if >> the >> question caused any offence. I raised the question totally independent of >> that >> fact that someone within Canonical had set up the site. > > You can't both say that it is "totally independent" from someone next > to you being responsible for it, and that it's about being an > "unknown" third party. >
I can see how that may have been misinterpreted. I meant the hosting infrastructure of the site, not the person who deployed it. > If your worries are about reliability, there is public track record > with the uptime since it was put online > (http://stats.pingdom.com/r29i3cfl66c0), and that uptime is supported > by replicated deployments across separate cities with automatic > failover. > > Any other concerns? > No, thanks for clarifying. -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
