incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction
Date Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:32:54 GMT
On 4/30/12 2:53 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Kay Schenk<kay.schenk@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Kay Schenk<kay.schenk@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/27/2012 01:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Andrea Pescetti<pescetti@apache.org>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please take a look at and give feedback on a test page for the new
>>>>>> /download/index.html page at:
>>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/index_new_dl.**html<http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html>
>>>>>> Yes, it's a bit strange with lots of nonsense at the top that I wanted
>>>>>> you to see, but will of course go away in production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The page is nice, but it's the concept that leaves me dubious.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have another thread
>>>>> http://comments.gmane.org/**gmane.comp.apache.incubator.**
>>>>> ooo.devel/16219<http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.ooo.devel/16219>
>>>>> where there seems to be consensus towards a solution that:
>>>>> 1) Uses SF (and possibly Apache) for the web-based downloads
>>>>> 2) Does not phase out MirrorBrain, and uses it for the updates (i.e.,
>>>>> downloads initiated by OpenOffice with the "Look for updates" function)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That's what I understand as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> oh -- OK. I thought we were going to use MirrorBrain for 3.3 DLs as well
>>> -- i.e. what Marcus will be working on. I know right now, we're using
>>> SourceForge for that though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>   The "possibly Apache" in 1) is due to the fact that I haven't understood
>>>>> yet
>>>>> what technology Apache will be using and if Apache will distribute only
>>>>> sources or binaries too (it's obvious that we as a project will release
>>>>> sources and binaries, but I'm not 100% sure that Apache wants to put
>>>>> binaries on its mirrors too: I think so).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well it's not all that complicated actually. Take a look at the security
>>> patch info page...
>>>
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/**security/cves/CVE-2012-0037.**html<http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2012-0037.html>
>>>
>>> and you can see what the link looks like.
>>>
>>> Actual source/binaries are, for us, put in:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo/<http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/>
>>>
>>> This said, you could be right in having issues tracking down problems.
>>> Right now, the SF setup is more "user friendly" in my opinion. I thought we
>>> were *required* to use Apache for downloads, but maybe we've gotten a
>>> dispensation for this release. Though I didn't think is was 100% someplace
>>> else. I admit I haven't kept up as much as I should have though.
>>>
>>> The other issue is how will it LOOK to users -- one moment they may be one
>>> place; if they happen to do a shift-reload, they may go someplace else with
>>> an entirely different look and feel.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Fact is, we should avoid the random selection as much as possible,
>>>>> mainly to
>>>>> be able to quickly identify problems, and you will see details in that
>>>>> thread. The cleaner separation we can get, the better.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> So how about something very simple:
>>>>
>>>> 1) AOO 3.4 downloads use SourceForge by default from the
>>>> /download/index.html page.  Just like they are doing today.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This WOULD make things a lot simpler.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But we also have a links there that point to Apache mirrors for:
>>>>
>>>> a) Hashes and detached signatures
>>>> b) source distribution
>>>> c) a link to the full release tree
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, SF will need to implement in their sidebar or the main page for
>>> openoffice.org they have, right?
>>>
>>> Anyway, good conversation.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In other words, no rolling the dice, noting fancy.  100% of normal
>>>> users will download from SF.
>>>>
>>>> 2) When we enable the automated updates, in a week or two, then we
>>>> decide what we want to do.  Maybe we do it via SF.  Maybe MirrorBrain.
>>>>   Maybe a mix,
>>>>
>>>>   On the other side, release time is approaching and I can only hope that
>>>>> talks between Peter Poeml (MirrorBrain author) and Apache Infra, that
had
>>>>> started on this list, are progressing now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I think it is too late for any of those talks to influence how we deal
>>>> with AOO 3.4 initial downloads.  But maybe the update downloads in a
>>>> couple of weeks.
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>   Regards,
>>>>>   Andrea.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>> ------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
>>>   And life has a funny way of helping you out
>>>   Helping you out."
>>>                             -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, I am hoping this will be about the last, final review on the new
>> download/index.html --
>>
>> prototype at:
>>
>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html
>>
>> This assumes SourceForge ONLY, and that the  3.4 pre-built client packs
>> will be in the hiearchy as the 3.3 is -- stable, etc.
>>
>> Naturally NONE of the links will work until something gets out there and
>> there is a TON of alerts which I will of course eventually comment out.
>>
>>
>> It suddenly dawned on me *just today* that we don't want to continue to
>> generate links for OSes we no longer support now, like Sun's retinue, and
>> for some reason because of how this all operates, it took me forever to fix
>> this one aspect.  I could have not bothered with this but well, I didn't
>> want to lead folks astray with a "not found" -- so they will now get sent
>> to "other.html".
>>
>> So, please test with what you've got and I hope for ALL platforms that we
>> do support, you get a link that looks to be correct.
>>
>
> The link looks good for me, including the trailing "/download" that
> SourceForge needs.
>
> A few things:
>
> 1) Text should be 'Apache OpenOffice' not 'OpenOffice.org'
>
> 2) Google Analytics needs to enable on the page.
>
> 3) We need to get a link to the source code in there someplace.

as proposed in 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9E3B4C.9040403%40googlemail.com%3E

and the following email the place should be

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/source/...

Juergen

>
> 4) The original page had a link for extensions and templates.  The new
> one only has extensions.  Was this intentional?
>
>
> Otherwise, it looks good!
>
> I can help with some of these, especially #2, but I'll wait to see if
> there are any bigger changes first.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> ps. I'm assuming that we will house the actual "source" artifact from
>> Apache and this will show up in other.html as well when someone provides
>> this information.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
>>   And life has a funny way of helping you out
>>   Helping you out."
>>                             -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette


Mime
View raw message