incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:31:13 GMT
On 23 August 2012 21:14, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.mail@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 08/23/2012 10:02 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, RGB ES<rgb.mldc@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> 2012/8/23 Kay Schenk<kay.schenk@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
>>>> release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
>>>>
>>>> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
>>>> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
>>>>
>>>> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're
>>>> still
>>>> being used
>>>>
>>>> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed
>>>> structure,
>>>> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to work on
>>>> modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> MzK
>>>>
>>>> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
>>>>      take it or leave it. "
>>>>                                     -- Buddy Hackett
>>>
>>>
>>> Warning: Layman comment following.
>>>
>>> Even if en-US is the base for all the other builds, I see no need to
>>> completely separate it from the rest. IMO, a structure like
>>>
>>> /stable/VERSION/<lang abbreviation>/etcetera
>>>
>>> were<lang abbreviation>  includes en-US at the same level of all the
>>> other localizations would be perfectly clear to anyone.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> This weird split complicates scripting operations on the tree.
>>
>> We could probably also eliminate the base of "/stable".  We don't
>> release unstable code, do we?
>
>
> I don't know if it's wanted by us or allowed by ASF:
>
> We could release Beta versions or RCs in a different dir than stable/.
>
> Then it would make sense to keep it. Otherwise you are right.
>
>
>> At a level higher we have another split, between source and binaries,
>> where binaries are in "/files" and source is in VERSION.
>>
>> So:
>>
>> /ooo/3.4.1/source here
>> /ooo/files/stable/de/3.4.1/binaries here
>>
>> This might  be harmonized as:
>>
>> /ooo/VERSION/src
>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/LANG/
>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/SDK
>
>
> Or just
>
> /ooo/VERSION/
>
> to get the most flat structure.
>
> Maybe
>
> /ooo/VERSION/src/
> /ooo/VERSION/bin/
>
> if it's needed to separate source and binary files.

Having a top-level version dir works well with svnpubsub.

The staging directory is at
    https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/
and the release (live) dirs are at
    https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/

This makes it particularly easy in to rename dev/version/ to
release/version/ once a release vote passes, as there is a containing
folder for everything.

Other arrangements are possible, but are harder to promote from dev/ to release/

As to non-GA builds, several other TLPs release -ALPHA and -BETA
versions; if such suffices are included in the folder and artifact
version names it makes the status obvious.

> Marcus
>

Mime
View raw message