One benefit of the proposed structure would be, that we would have
everything that belongs to a release in one place: release notes, sources,
binaries. Currently the dist location of lang looks like the following:

RELEASE-NOTES.txt (of the 3.4 release)
- source
-- 2.6 sources
-- 3.4 sources
- binaries
-- 2.6 binaries
-- 3.4 binaries

No release notes for 2.6 :-(

Another thing I've never understood is, why it's called "source" (singular)
but "binaries" (plural).

I'm +1 to move to the new layout for any releases to come.

Benedikt

2015-06-23 18:48 GMT+02:00 Phil Steitz <[email protected]>:

> On 6/23/15 9:05 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 22 June 2015 at 19:11, Benedikt Ritter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Sounds good to me. Would be more "maven-style". However I'm not sure how
> >> this change would affect clients referencing the absolute URLs of the
> >> artifacts.
> > It won't affect Maven URLs.
> >
> >> Maybe we should change the layout for the releases to come and
> >> leave anything we already have there as it is?
> > Yes, it should only apply to new releases.
>
> That would get pretty ugly for [pool] and [dbcp] which maintain
> multiple "current" release distros.  Could probably be hacked with
> symlinks or something but honestly I would rather spend time on
> other things...
>
> Phil
> >
> >> Benedikt
> >>
> >> 2015-06-22 7:18 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory <[email protected]>:
> >>
> >>> I'm OK with a different layout.
> >>> Gary
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original message --------
> >>> From: sebb <[email protected]>
> >>> Date: 06/21/2015  17:09  (GMT-08:00)
> >>> To: [email protected]
> >>> Subject: [ALL] re-organise dist directory layout?
> >>>
> >>> I wonder whether the current directory layout is the most convenient.
> >>>
> >>> At present, binaries and source are held in separate areas, and all
> >>> versions of each type are combined.
> >>>
> >>> I think it might simplify matters to use a single directory per
> >>> version, with both source and binary together.
> >>>
> >>> The current arrangement makes it a bit awkward when uploading the
> >>> files, as the different files have to be moved into the appropriate
> >>> folders. It also makes it awkward to delete obsolete versions, and
> >>> harder to rename files from the dist/dev to the dist/release area.
> >>> It's also a bit more awkard when checking releases, as two directorie
> >>> have to be downloaded.
> >>>
> >>> Changing the mirror layout would not affect people using the download
> >>> pages.
> >>> It would look a bit different for users who browse the mirror folders,
> >>> but this will be a small minority of users, and it's pretty easy to
> >>> distinguish the source archives from the binary ones.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> >> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> >> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> >> http://github.com/britter
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>


-- 
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Reply via email to