move towards using gopkg.in

[Ian Booth]

On 08/07/14 08:32, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> 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 the recent issue with an out of date certificate or so I was told).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.
>

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.