2009.11.02 15:52, Marcus Lange rašė: > Marcus Lange wrote: >>> I would propose to merge the two pages you created with main >>> http://download.openoffice.org/other.html and >>> http://download.openoffice.org/langpack.html respectively. >> >> I've tried this but don't liked it because IMHO this is too much >> content for a single page. >> >>> Untested builds could be listed in the same table as tested builds, or >>> in a new one. In case of former, the resulting download table could >>> look >>> something like this:
Sorry, I forgot to send that mail as HTML, so it went all crappy... >> OK, with the hint of "Untested" it could work. I've to play with this >> setup. > > I tried to start with this but I still think we should not mix stable > and unstable builds together: > > - builds for the platforms Itanium and Linux PPC (not done by Sun) have > just an en-US, all other languages would remain empty in the column. All languages in http://download.openoffice.org/other.html have that column anyway. I don't think it's a big deal. > - even so all builds for Mac OS PPC (which are done by Maho) have to be > integrsted, currently there is no process for this and doing it > hand-by-hand is a mess Oh right. But I think that's just the same problem as with Linux Itanium and PPC builds. Untested builds could simply not be listed in this column. > - what do we do with stable releases that are older than the current RC? > E.g.: > > Mac OS X PPC for en-US: 2.4.0 is the latest stable release and 3.1.1 > RC2 is the most recent one. Both cannot be listed in a mixed table. yeah, that's where I messed up with my table.... I'll employ ascii art to illustrate my idea. Please switch to a monospace font: +-----------------------+--------+----------+------------------+ +------------------+ | Language | Latest | Arch 1 | Arch 2 | ... | Arch n | +-----------------------+--------+----------+------------------+ +------------------+ ... +-----------------------+--------+----------+------------------+ +------------------+ | Lithuanian Lietuvių | 3.1.1 | Download | Tested (3.1.0) | ... | Tested (3.0.1) | | | | | Untested (3.1.1) | | Untested (3.1.1) | +-----------------------+--------+----------+------------------+ +------------------+ ... As you see, both versions can obviously be listed, and that's exactly what I propose. And here's what could be done to save some horizontal space: 1) the "Latest Release" column could be removed; 2) Columns like "Linux 32-bit RPM" and "Linux 32-bit DEB" could be merged, into one, and provide links to both DEB and RPM versions in the same fashion as above (other merge criterias could be used too). > So, I still think separated tables and websites are the best to guide > the users to the appropriate files. Then it's just a question of how > to make them available and visible in the best way. I'm OK with separate tables. But I'd prefer to see them all on the same page. Rimas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
