How about we keep 1.1.0, 1.0.2 and 0.11.2 then? When 1.0.3 is released, we'll archive 1.0.2 at least. I don't think we should be encouraging downloads of 0.11.2, so I'd like to archive it soon.
B. On 6 June 2011 16:58, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote: > >> To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure >> policy is, "We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major >> version, anything else should be archived." > > Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern > here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the > matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so that > projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be. > >> I have been instructed to >> specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory >> under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties. > > Again, where? > > This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists. > > I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that in > doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical detail > means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problems. > That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting this > discussion. > > Anyone see a problem with this? > >> As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike >> shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents >> us from linking to the archived versions. > > These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page > must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers. > So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from this > page.
