From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1600 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2002 05:36:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1575 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2002 05:36:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dair.pair.com) (209.68.1.49) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2002 05:36:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 96087 invoked by uid 20157); 20 Dec 2002 05:36:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Dec 2002 05:36:01 -0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:52:00 -0000 From: Hans-Peter Nilsson X-X-Sender: hp@dair.pair.com To: Christopher Faylor cc: overseers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Just use google for archive searching? In-Reply-To: <20021220024950.GA9178@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-q4/txt/msg00264.txt.bz2 On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Is there any reason why we can't just let google do our work for us? > It's already hitting the web server archiving messages so why not let it > deal with archive searches, too? For the sourceware side, indeed. Though google has an update frequency which (IIRC and rumors) is in the order of "weekly". Maybe it isn't an issue, but I recall a report that assumed updates were less than the current 48h for the htdig index. For the gcc side, I think, as I've mentioned before, that there are political issues with using a non-free (as in source-code) resource. Replacing a free-software indexer with a non-free one would be a no-no. brgds, H-P