[ziml77]

I don't particularly care for Drew, but the issue he's reported here seems totally valid. And if he requested that he be excluded from getting hit by the crawler, wouldn't that mean it would be impossible for people to use packages from sr.ht unless they change their config?

Plus, it does seem reasonable to think that only one of the crawlers needs to hit the site. The global replication can happen at the FS level or, heck, the crawlers can just perform pulls from each other.

[tptacek]

No. According to the Go project, adding his site to the exclusion list would reduce traffic to his site at the cost of freshness of the data the proxy collects; it would not make it "impossible" for people to use packages from sr.ht.

This is all in the thread that DeVault linked to from his post.

[tete]

Which would still be far from great for any kind of source hosting website.

[tptacek]

In what way would it be "far from great"?

[tete]

Well, why have that proxy/functionality in first place if the best option is to disable it?

[tptacek]

I don't even understand the question you're asking. Nobody is suggesting the proxy be disabled, including for sr.ht.

It's OK not to know the specifics of what this is about, but it's weird to have strong opinions about it if you don't.