Fernando Alegre writes: >On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote: >>We can't put stuff like this where just anybody can download it any >>longer. Especially, we can't do that and call it "1.0". This isn't >>entirely Infomagic's fault, in my opinion. > >I suggested some time ago to call the directories: > >release-0.93/ >not-released-1.0/ > >Maybe it was not such a bad idea...
If I might just stick my oar in on this one: As I understand it, mirrors have some trouble with directories changing names; so what we really want is a solution that keeps directory names fixed. The suggestion below suffers here in that when 1.0 is declared to be released, the directory has to change name from not-released-1.0 to release-1.0. This could be solved with a symlink, obviously, but that still leaves a directory called `not-released-1.0' containing released software, which may be felt to be suboptimal. A common practice is to give unreleased products code names. (Remember Cairo, Daytona, etc...?) If we were to adopt this scheme then the unreleased software would just be a directory with a non-obvious name; each release would have a symlink containing the version number added when it was actually released. If the 0.93R6/1.0 situation were handled like this we'd have, before the release: 0.93R6 -> Highgate Highgate/ [contains 0.93R6] Holborn/ [contains what will be 1.0] and after the release: 0.93R6 -> Highgate Highgate/ [contains 0.93R6] 1.0 -> Holborn Holborn/ [contains 1.0] No renaming needed, no misleading filenames ... to find out what Highgate and Holborn were without going through symlinks you'd have to read a README which would also warn you about installing unreleased software. This idea went down quite well when discussed off-line last night - what does anyone else think? -- Richard Kettlewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/