incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction
Date Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:53:03 GMT
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.

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