cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@indexgeo.com.au>
Subject filename for cocoon-latest.* on mirror.cgi
Date Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:29:17 GMT
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> I just added the current version information to the mirror page,
> so when you go to that page, you see to which version "latest"
> relates.
> 
> Thanks for the hint.

That is a bit better, but Andrew hints at other issues. When they
download the archive, then the filename just says "latest" on their
disk. Sure, they should just rename it with a version number.

He also refers to the problem when you browse the "cocoon/" directory
"Latest releases and milestones" there may be confusion. Why do we need
the "latest"? They can easily see by the date and version number.

I suppose that it adds one more task to our release process to modify
the mirror.html page.

--David

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2001@aol.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:22 AM
> > To: cziegeler@s-und-n.de
> > Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1.3 Released
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > With all due respect can I suggest that the current way of distributing
> > Cocoon is plain daft!
> >
> > On http://cocoon.apache.org/mirror.cgi there is a file
> > cocoon-latest-src.zip. Great until a week or a month or 2 months down the
> > line. When the latest file will, presumably, still be
> > cocoon-latest-src.zip.
> >
> > So, how do I easily tell then whether I need to download and upgrade? I
> > can't, at least not easily.
> >
> > Why not use the traditional system of giving the version a
> > NUMBER? It allows
> > comparison of whether I have, or have not, the latest version.
> >
> > Yes, I found that there is a numbered version of 2.1.3 at
> > http://ftp.plig.org/pub/apache/dist/cocoon/SOURCES/ but why use this silly
> > cocoon-latest-src.zip idea at all? Good for lazy Web page authors
> > who don't
> > want to have to update the page perhaps? But not good for users.
> >
> > It just seems daft to me.
> >
> > Andrew Watt
> > P.S. I *do* appreciate the good work you guys do, but "little things" like
> > this are very frustrating.
> >


Mime
View raw message