<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/28/2012 05:56 PM, Karl Kleinpaste
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:vxk7gtnqkxi.fsf@awol.kleinpaste.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Who would want to provide EarlyFathers in a redundant repo? Perhaps
more importantly, why?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
More to the point, why not? What advantages are to be gained by
limiting distribution to just one site? How do they outweigh the
obvious advantages of having more than one site?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:vxk7gtnqkxi.fsf@awol.kleinpaste.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I just don't see the motivation behind the idea of wanting to see a
single module available from more than one repo. I actually do this; ...</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The advantages of having a single module, especially a Scripture
module, available from more than one source include (but are not
limited to):<br>
<ul>
<li>Higher availability and reliability of access. If one source
becomes inaccessible for any reason, alternate sources are still
available.</li>
<li>Higher total server bandwidth is available, yielding better
performance as popularity rises.</li>
<li>Better persecution and censorship resistance.</li>
</ul>
Questions of version control and authenticity are better addressed
with consistent module naming and version labeling conventions and
digital signatures, which do not require a single choke point of
control.<br>
<br>
Diversity of repositories, like diversity of front ends, seems to me
to be more consistent with an open source project.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>