The problem is the cost here is paid by a group of volunteers, no? It's objectively reducing capacity for a really important public project by 20%. If you're responsible for keeping a public good like this available, it seems obvious to me to want to prevent this overuse of resources. Only one of the 3 parties involved here is not willing to engage in good faith right now and causing harm. I don't understand a need to try and tolerate them.
> What is the cost of 20% and is that cost worth “mildly annoying” everyone?
from the articled:
> With a bunch of generous assumptions, legitimate requests are only about 2% of git.kernel.org traffic — everything else are scrapers.
this is not some "CPU use is 20% higher than baseline" situation. it seems that people still do not understand the scale of these bad actors.
Nevertheless, without knowing what it actually is in cost, it’s impossible to have an objective sense of the severity of this problem.
Is it, “everyone’s mildly annoyed so we can save $10k per year” or is it “everyone’s mildly annoyed so we can save $100k per year?” And has someone attempted to reason about what the $/year cost is of that mild annoyance?
I’ve seen this a lot in my career. Developers coming to conclusions that are ultimately based on what feels expensive or problematic.