On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 22:10, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jürgen Schmidt > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)<[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenk<[email protected]> > > > > > > �wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > setup in the "old" way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for > > > > > > > pre-build > > > > > > > client downloads. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i.e. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <root>/files/stable/<version>/ > > > > > > > <pack name> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <root>/files/localized/<**language>/<version>/<pack name> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm hoping the answer is "YES". > > > > > > Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now > > > > > > and > > > > > > for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not > > > > > > something where it will be easier to clean up later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work. > > > > > > > > > > Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory > > > > > structure > > > > > that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release. > > > > > > > > > > However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work > > > > > this > > > > > way, too. > > > > > > > > > > As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO > > > > > 3.4 I > > > > > wouldn't do bigger changes now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a > > > > > > 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't > > > > > be > > > > > big > > > > > changes. For further releases see above. > > > > > > > > > > Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old > > > > > project, > > > > > so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems the easiest way to go to me too. > > > > > > > > Roberto > > > > > > OK, I need some clarification here -- again. > > > > > > I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that > > > the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but.... > > > > > > > > > we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK, > > > we just need some awareness. > > > > > > So -- can someone tell me what's what here. > > > > I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure > > in the beginning of this thread if it is possible. > > > > > Your very first suggestion would entail *really* major changes right now, > so this is the LEAST of my favorite! > > > > That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a > > little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including the > > checksum files) for each downloadable file. > > > > And it will work for future releases as well. > > > > I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said > > that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have it > > in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common consensus. > > > > > OK, I don't understand this last bit. Well I gave a very clear example how I planned to organize the bits on dist based on a structure that came from Marcus . And this was slightly different than the former structure but closer to my proposal. And no clear veto or response so I took it as accepted. > > Please again take a look at to the current setup on SourceForge: > > <DL url>/files/localized/<language-code>/3.4.0/<packages> > > It would simplify our rollout if we could just stick with the current > structure on SourceForge. We will be using that as our primary DL mirror > for clients. > >
We will do that but in general the dist folder should be our reference for all mirrors. > > Marcus's alternate suggestion of : > > <root-path>/files/3.4.0/... > <root-path>/files/3.4.1/... > <root-path>/files/3.5.0/... > > seems like a good option to me as well, and you responded to this. But, the > least amount of change -- i.e. keeping the structure we have -- is really > the best at this point in terms of getting something done in a reasonable > time. Maybe we could discuss alternatives for *after* 3.4 in the future? We > are planning on a retool of the DL script after this, and incorporating > easier ways to deal with changes like this are high on the priority list. > > Right now, we are planning on using SF for the majority of downloads -- > typical clients -- and that structure -- good or bad -- is already in > place, and the test DL script is working based on this. > > taken and we will keep the old structure > > We will probably only use the Apache "dist" system for source. > So, in terms of how you setup things there I don't really care, but, of > course, we need information about that. > well we should care about it, the dist folder is the place where releases are provided and where the release manager have to upload the bits. And I would have preferred to have a clean structure from the beginning. For me the future and future releases are more important than older versions. But it is of course good to have the older versions available. > > > As silly as this probably seems to you, could we PLEASE just stick with the > current structure for now? > Yes, we will go with the old structure for now Juergen > > > > But now I am confused. We should clarify the structure before I will start > > the upload tomorrow. > > > > I haven't looked in the details behind the download scripts and don't know > > how much work it is to adapt them to a new directory structure. That means > > I will use the structure that will work for now. > > > > Juergen > > > > > > > > > > > I CAN change the friendly scripts to go with the NEW (Apache) structure. > > > In fact I'm going to work on THAT approach today (along with Rob's > > > changes) and hopefully we'll be set for either instance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > To setup a new structure that makes maybe more sense can be done later > > > > > for a > > > > > release after 3.4.x. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my 2 ct > > > > > > > > > > Marcus > > > > ==== > > > > This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. > > > > It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not > > > > the > > > > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > > > > distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly > > > > prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please > > > > immediately > > > > notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and > > > > any > > > > attachment(s) from your system. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you > And life has a funny way of helping you out > Helping you out." > -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette > >
