On 27.05.2015, at 19:41, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: > Re: looking at the patch - sorry - didn't do that (yet)... > > Re: not a good reason - for the user who wants to compare performance vis an > older version. > > I guess I think this is a good reason if it is being done to some frequency; I > think the driving force for a web site should be to make it easy for users. > And, we're guessing at what our users might be doing / wanting, to some > degree.
I don't generally object to that point - having a well designed website in which the users find what they want is important. But it is also in our interest to guide users, e.g. to the latest supported release with the latest bug-fixes. Do you consider 2.6.0 to be an actively supported release? > Another approach (copying how the Eclipse and other web sites do this), would > be > to have a link on the main download page to another, archive download page, > which would be an organized web-page to the older releases. (as opposed to > just > saying go find the artifact you want from this general spot on > archive.apache.org). Sounds good. I guess such a page could be far less detailed than the main page as well, basically listing the version and downloads, but maybe not providing the full set of links to README, Release notes, etc. etc? -- Richard
