Right. I'm gonna take a look at this in a bit. Once I've figured out what I think we should keep around, I'll do a lazy PROPOSAL thread. Thanks for bringing this up Jan. I'm gonna fold your argument into the release procedure too, so we don't forget it. :)
On 26 May 2013 15:02, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, another question: if we're gonna move some old releases back > into dist for things like Homebrew, which releases? Do we just want to move > 1.2.2 (quite recent) or do we also want to do 1.2.1? What about even older > ones? > > > On 26 May 2013 14:56, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My point is: it's has already been removed. So I'm wondering if you think >> we should move it back. We've never done something like this, so I wanna be >> sure what you're proposing. :) >> >> >> On 26 May 2013 14:50, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> NS >> > > > > -- > NS > -- NS
