couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Archiving old releases
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:32:03 GMT
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:44, Robert Newson wrote:
>
>> Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we
>> should archive.
>>
>> For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and
>> archive everything else.
>
>
> The ASF has asked us to tidy our distribution directory.
>
> So I would like to use this opportunity to clarify our archive policy going forward.
>
> The things to note are:
>
>  * All releases are permanently archived by the ASF
>
>  * Only current releases need to be in the main distribution directory
>
>  * The main distribution directory is mirrored around the world
>
>  * This is why we need to limit our use of it
>
>  * These current releases are linked to from downloads.html
>
>  * Whatever we have advertised there is what is mirrored
>
> The questions I have in mind are:
>
>  * How many point releases do we want to have on downloads.html at any one time?
>
>  * If we release X.X.1, do we remove X.X.0 from that page?
>
> I think that about covers it.
>
>

To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure
policy is, "We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major
version, anything else should be archived." I have been instructed to
specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory
under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties.

The number of point releases to keep is less strict. I think everyone
would agree that having two is the minimum. And I don't think anyone
is against removing 0.11.2 as is being proposed. I would +1 for
keeping it at two to give us a defined way to drop support for older
releases.

As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike
shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents
us from linking to the archived versions.

HTH,
Paul Davis

Mime
View raw message