On May 26, 2013, at 09:47 , Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > You make a compelling argument, Jan. Do you think we should move the 1.2.2 > release back into the dist dir, or should we just keep this in mind for > future releases?
I don’t think it is too much effort to keep it around, is it? Best Jan -- > > > On 26 May 2013 14:44, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On May 23, 2013, at 08:20 , Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dave, >>> >>> See the following thread: >>> >>> [DISCUSS] Release clean-up (delete ALL the branches!) >>> http://markmail.org/message/rrz5yl6fig2vnfu5 >>> >>> Specifically, my proposal to drop support for the 1.2.x line for the >>> following reasons: >>> >>> * The 1.2.x line is over a year old >>> * The 1.3.x line is upwards compatible >>> >>> On 23 May 2013 10:30, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> But does that mean we only keep the latest version on the mirrors? >>>> >>> >>> Yep. >>> >>> But... All of the 1.2.x releases are available here: >>> >>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/ >>> >>> What I am proposing we do is that when we drop support* for a release, we >>> remove it from our active dist dir. The files will always be available in >>> our archive dist dir, so the releases are still available, should you >> need >>> them. >>> >>> What we want to avoid is people going to our active dist dir, seeing >> 1.2.2 >>> and thinking "ah, this is a supported release. I'll download and install >>> it." Because at this point, we don't want people to do that any more. (We >>> want them do use 1.3.0.) >> >> People don’t go to dist/ folders. They click on links on the website or >> type `apt-get install couchdb`. I don’t think “making dist/ look recent” >> is a primary objective here. >> >> In fact, I think there is a danger / inconvenience here. We have little >> control over what downstream packagers reference, let alone, what state >> downstream user’s package repository references are in. I recently had >> a support case where we had one tarball removed from dist and the person >> still had a little bit out of date (but not by much) brew repo, so >> `brew install couchdb` failed with tarball not found, which doesn’t make >> obvious that `brew update` (refreshing the available package list) would >> help. >> >> I am sure someone can find someone else to blame for this, but I am not >> interested in that, I am just concerned with the experience of our users >> and we’d have a better situation, if we had them let install a slightly >> (it was a .z-level version bump) out of date version than the >> *very* latest. >> >> >> >> tl;dr: Supporting a release is different from keeping a tarball around >> on its original release URL and I think the latter timeframe should be >> longer. >> >> Best >> Jan >> -- >> >> >> >> >>> * When I say "drop support" I mean "we don't backport features or >> bugfixes >>> to this line any more". >> >> >> >>> >>> My apologies if we've already agreed this & it is just sinking into my >>>> little bear brain today. >>>> >>> >>> No worries. It seems this has caught a few people by surprise. We're >>> changing a system we've been using for half a decade, so that's to be >>> expected. :) >>> >>> >>>> TL;DR does it make sense to keep the n and n-1 active releases on the >>>> mirrors, or shall I just point people to >>>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/binary/win/1.2.2/ etc? Maybe >>>> add a link on our website? >>>> >>> >>> Why would we want to keep n-1 active release on the mirrors? >>> >>> We shouldn't be encouraging anybody to download 1.2.2 any longer, so why >>> would we want to keep it around? >>> >>> -- >>> NS >> >> > > > -- > NS
