I'd like to bring this message back to life. A few users posted to the ML recently and asked about M2. Immediate response has been to use the latest since M2 is very old (IMHO makes sense).
This email thread was suggesting to remove the download link of very old releases to avoid confusion. We can leave the release history in place to show that there was a release, but remove the link for download to avoid confusion. If everyone agrees, when does a link get removed, in other words, how old the release should be? For starter, M2 is based on an older version of the spec. Should we remove the download link? On 8/10/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/10/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The latest release for each subproject is the preferred release to > > download. > > Does it make sense to keep links to download for old releases on the > > download page? This can give a wrong impression that these are also OK > to > > download. For example, for Java SCA there are still links to M1 and M2 > > from > > last year. Architecture has changed since then. > > > > Does it make sense to have the latest release and the previous release > as > > an > > option for download and leave everything else under history or remove > > them? > > > > Haleh > > > I think yes we should keep them. One of the first things I look at when > coming across an open source project is the release history as it gives > you > a good indication of how much life there is in the project. Maybe from > that > we don't need actual links to the download artifacts, but something > clearly > showing we do regular releases and have been doing so for years is a Good > Thing IMHO. Another reason is if someone is debugging some old system with > a > back level release they may need access to the source distro to debug the > code. > > ...ant >
