> Hi, > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > > "Administrator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> I have a minor complaint about this ... > >> > >> Because you "replaced" the original DVD images, and I was part way > >> through downloading them using bittorrent, the downloaded > files I had > >> were then a nice mix of the old and new, and I've been > serving this > >> mix back to people who were also downloading the DVD images using > >> torrent. I've only just noticed, and so deleted > everything that had > >> been downloaded. How many other people are in the same position? > >> > >> Can I suggest that this policy should be reconsidered, or > something > >> done to ensure the partial torrent downloads don't become corrupt? > > > > We did not want to have both at the same time out there to > save space > > on the mirrors. > > > > Sorry for this breakage, for next time we have to think of > a different > > way to do it, > > Each "different way" will bring the same problem: There is a > point in time where the old image gets deleted... > The sooner, the better. >
The problem isn't deleted, but replaced / updated. The former means the download fails. The latter means the download gets (silently) corrupted. Big difference! I understand why it was replaced ... it means fewer web site updates as all the links didn't need to be found and updated. Can I suggest an alternative which is used successfully elsewhere. The "originals" are created with some kind of date / version, and then links are created which don't have a version / date and which point to the most recent good version. The torrents would be the same, i.e. have embedded in them the file name with the version / date, and would need to be udpated when a new version is created. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
