move towards using gopkg.in

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Ian Booth <ian.booth at 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 the recent issue with an out of date certificate or so I was told).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