Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robert.newson@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.52 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=R61a3K+KPTfNgAAlY8ND9WKq/COlmucIbTNen68rLYSbkzcm9OrlDwRXdk+yzK2u3X
         5cAej/oq7ksMI+Vq6pxnMFzr6Ns5qd7QsW/h6jNn7OEDnTDQKa/bSuyD9go1JrEGfzh4
         qcf5LQODOX8/h1zlUPLb4D+BizZiyjD+7Hidk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <42D6A147-4074-45D4-8153-A6F82011A5F6@apache.org>
References: <BANLkTingph7Hm6K9wXagmYoaQmZfHzvHaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2CB4C087-7FEF-4669-A045-DC9519DA8BE2@apache.org>
	<BANLkTi=Xt+W=3sxN6V0vWo=QT9ULMYDWdg@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D6A147-4074-45D4-8153-A6F82011A5F6@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:02:54 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTikJWF7_QCbCAEZw=CR=KB4CBvttfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Archiving old releases
From: Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

How about we keep 1.1.0, 1.0.2 and 0.11.2 then?

When 1.0.3 is released, we'll archive 1.0.2 at least. I don't think we
should be encouraging downloads of 0.11.2, so I'd like to archive it
soon.

B.

On 6 June 2011 16:58, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> 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."
>
> Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern=
 here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the=
 matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so tha=
t projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be.
>
>> 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.
>
> Again, where?
>
> This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists.
>
> I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that=
 in doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical det=
ail means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problem=
s. That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting t=
his discussion.
>
> Anyone see a problem with this?
>
>> 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.
>
> These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page=
 must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers=
. So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from th=
is page.