openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
Subject Re: Release 3.4.1 storage and incubator removal.
Date Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:46:57 GMT
Am 08/01/2013 01:31 AM, schrieb sebb:
> On 31 July 2013 21:31, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>  wrote:
>> Am 07/31/2013 03:06 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:33 AM, janI<jani@apache.org>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Moving conversation to dev@
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 31 July 2013 13:28, J├╝rgen Schmidt<jogischmidt@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/31/13 1:07 PM, janI wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on a discussion today on IRC, I would like to draw your attention
>>>>>> to the following challenge. henkp is cc because he is the infra person
>>>>>> doing the rsync magic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ASF has a policy that incubator/xxx should be removed when the project
>>>>>> graduates. We still have our 3.4.1 (and 3.3.0) release stored under
>>>>>> incubator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As part of cleaning rsync, infra want to enforce the policy, but
of
>>>>>> course respect and understand our need to have 3.4.1 available to
users
>>>>>> (especially because 3.4.1 contains languages not released in 4.0).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see the following possibilities:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) remove openoffice from incubator, but leave version 3.3.0 and
3.4.1
>>>>>> (with language packs) on the SF mirror. This is preferred by infra.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to keep it on SF
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) remove 3.3.0 since its a legacy version, and move 3.4.1 parallel
to
>>>>>> 4.0. This is however an expensive operation for all mirror, and should
>>>>>> only be done if we anticipate patches for 3.4.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Removing 3.3 is ok to me but I see demand for keeping 3.4.1. Having it
>>>>> besides 4.0 would be natural but needs some work in the download scripts
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just for me, do you prefer 1) or 2) ... I personally dont see a big need
>>>> to
>>>> keep 3.4.1 on our servers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> INHO it is fine to keep 3.4.1 and early on archive.apache.org and SF
>>> only, provided Infra is OK with us pointing our website links for the
>>> hashes and signatures of 3.4.1 and earlier to archive and not to the
>>> dist.  I don't think the bandwidth will be significant for these.
>>
>>
>> I was told that these files must be linked from "www.apache.org/dist/" only
>> and always. If we can get now an exception for "archive.apache.org/dist/" -
>> hey, it's hosted by Apache, too :-) - this would be good.
>
> www.apache.org/dist/ - current release(s)
> archive.apache.org/dist/ - archived releases
>
> See:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/mirrors.html#location
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#when-to-archive

Thanks

Marcus



>>>>> 3) persuade infra to keep incubator for 3.4.1, but limit the footprint
>>>>> as much as possible, remove 3.3.0 and put a timelimit up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I believe we can manage to move it out of the incubator in some way.
>>>>>
>>>>>> We are also adviced, that if/when we change our layout infra need
to be
>>>>>> adviced well in advance. In my opinion we should consider not using
>>>>>> externaldist, but have the total release in one folder with subfolders.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well externaldist was not our idea and I copied the files in this
>>>>> structure of advice from infra. We should first clarify what's preferred
>>>>> here. "externaldist" caused some confusion and extra work on our side
as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can move the discussion to dev@ is nobody objects.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yes let's move to dev
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rgds
>>>>>> jan I.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message