db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dyre.Tjeldv...@Sun.COM
Subject Re: Question about archiving
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:19:15 GMT
Andrew McIntyre <mcintyre.a@gmail.com> writes:

[snip]

> It is no longer necessary to explicitly archive releases. All releases
> published to http://www.apache.org/dist are now automatically
> archived. The statement on DerbySnapshotOrRelease should be updated to
> reflect this.

I guessed that was the case when I noticed that 10.4 had already been
pushed to the archive without any intervention from me...

> In general, releases from branches that have seen little recent
> activity are unlikely to happen and should be downloadable only from
> the archive. At some point, we should stop advertising them on our
> download page as well. I also think that we should probably only link
> to the download page for the current release on any branch. So, on
> http://db.apache.org/derby/derby_downloads.html, we should probably
> only link to 10.4.1.3, 10.3.2.1, 10.2.2.0, and 10.1.3.1. When to
> remove 10.1 and 10.2 downloads from the download page is certainly a
> topic for discussion. We might want to add a pointer to the archive on
> the download page.
>
> 10.3.1.4 can be removed from the mirror directory, since it is no
> longer current for the 10.3 branch. 

Thanks for the feedback, Andrew. Much appreciated.

> It looks like you removed 10.3.2 also? Nothing wrong with that, I
> suppose, we want people to get the latest, especially since there's
> not a relatively current 10.3 release.

Actually, I had planned to keep it mirrored until I got some feedback
from the community, but I failed to realize that once I made the
download page point directly to the html, and not the CGI, the release
page would no longer work. Since svn is down I just patched the release
page locally so that it at least would be possible to download 10.3.2.1
from the archive.

If the community would like to keep 10.3.2.1 mirrored I guess there is
nothing preventing us from re-introducing the CGI, keep the release page
as it is (in svn), and change the links on the download page, (apart
from the svn history looking a bit messy).
 
> The main thing is to keep the mirror directory (relatively)
> clean, with only a couple of releases in there, and not let it get
> clogged with lots of old releases.

Agreed. Just don't want to delete anything until we know that svn is
stable... (less chance of something breaking if an old version of a page
gets restored...)

-- 
dt

Mime
View raw message