On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Yes, this is exactly what I was proposing. > 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. >
