On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Ian Booth <ian.bo...@canonical.com> 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 the recent issue with an out of date certificate or so I was told).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. 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? gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
