On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyryl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 15:16, Dan McGee <dpmc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> If they are syncing and up-to-date >> (http://www.archlinux.org/mirrors/status/), then why remove them? That >> seems pretty silly to me. > > No known admin email address or no response. > No known upstream. > I agree that these may not be very solid reasons, > but I see no other way to bring things to order. > > If we will need to change something within our mirroring scheme > (e.g. use of mirrorbrain or geodns, or some other change) > - we will have the problem contacting mirror admins again. > > If we would not disable rsync access for non-tier1 mirrors > on rsync.archlinux.org we would never hear from some mirror admins, > that I was unable to contact until their mirror stopped working > (and BTW, some didn't even notice that at all). > > It may be that my frustration influences my view, > so if you think I'm totally wrong - I will keep things as they are now.
First, I 100% understand the frustration. I'm only saying keep it in perspective- if we end up making a change that breaks these mirrors that have gone MIA, that is fine, and indicates forward progress on some other front. But breaking them on purpose just seems silly, if there is no need (read: forward progress) to. If we ever do mirrorbrain or geodns, then we can make the necessary changes at that time rather than doing anything ow when (as far as I'm aware) nothing big is on the horizon, or needs to be. I'd propose leaving these untended mirrors in the list, but *only* if they magically stay up to date and relatively pain-free. If they begin to lag, then mark them as inactive and they will no longer be on the official list. -Dan
