Andrew McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip]
> It is no longer necessary to explicitly archive releases. All releases > published to http://www.apache.org/dist are now automatically > archived. The statement on DerbySnapshotOrRelease should be updated to > reflect this. I guessed that was the case when I noticed that 10.4 had already been pushed to the archive without any intervention from me... > In general, releases from branches that have seen little recent > activity are unlikely to happen and should be downloadable only from > the archive. At some point, we should stop advertising them on our > download page as well. I also think that we should probably only link > to the download page for the current release on any branch. So, on > http://db.apache.org/derby/derby_downloads.html, we should probably > only link to 10.4.1.3, 10.3.2.1, 10.2.2.0, and 10.1.3.1. When to > remove 10.1 and 10.2 downloads from the download page is certainly a > topic for discussion. We might want to add a pointer to the archive on > the download page. > > 10.3.1.4 can be removed from the mirror directory, since it is no > longer current for the 10.3 branch. Thanks for the feedback, Andrew. Much appreciated. > It looks like you removed 10.3.2 also? Nothing wrong with that, I > suppose, we want people to get the latest, especially since there's > not a relatively current 10.3 release. Actually, I had planned to keep it mirrored until I got some feedback from the community, but I failed to realize that once I made the download page point directly to the html, and not the CGI, the release page would no longer work. Since svn is down I just patched the release page locally so that it at least would be possible to download 10.3.2.1 from the archive. If the community would like to keep 10.3.2.1 mirrored I guess there is nothing preventing us from re-introducing the CGI, keep the release page as it is (in svn), and change the links on the download page, (apart from the svn history looking a bit messy). > The main thing is to keep the mirror directory (relatively) > clean, with only a couple of releases in there, and not let it get > clogged with lots of old releases. Agreed. Just don't want to delete anything until we know that svn is stable... (less chance of something breaking if an old version of a page gets restored...) -- dt
