Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
Fernando Alegre writes: >I think my suggestion still fits very well within your scheme. Look below: >> 0.93R6 -> Highgate >> Highgate/ [contains 0.93R6] > >Why not having another symlink: > not-released-1.0 -> Holborn Yup, that'd be good. >That way we would just change the name of the symlink from >not-released-1.0 to release-1.0, while the actual directory would be the >same. This seems to be one of the more important things. -- Richard Kettlewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
>>That's essentially identical to what I was proposing with just two >>practical differences: (1) it uses numbers rather than names and (2) >>it goes to more effort to hide things. > >May be. I'm afraid I too-hurriedly deleted the message with your >suggestion, and can't go back to re-read it to see if I misread it >the first time through. > >The intended point of my suggestion, and you might have beaten me to >this, was to have the real directory trees be named neutrally, so >that their names wouldn't need to change, and use symlinks with >meaningful names (which could be easily changed without causing >massive re-mirroring) to point to them. This is precisely what I suggested. [..] >>As to (2), I'm not convinced about hiding things; what we actually >>want is for people to look in the right place for a stable version >>without having to think about it. If people actually want to live on >>the bleeding edge, it shouldn't actually be any effort to do so - just >>hard to do by accident. > >My suggestion, and the names I chose for illustration, was intended >to show a structure which allowed that. Unfortunately, I see that >I inadvertantly left out a directory level in some of my illustrative >namings. Let me try again, with that mistake corrected (names shown >below are intended to be illustrative. perhaps there are better >choices for the symlink names. In any case, the symlink names would >be changeable without causing massive re-mirroring.): > > /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1/ # full 0.093 tree > /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2/ # full 1.1 tree > /debian/debian-stable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 > /debian/debian-unstable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > /debian/debian-0.93 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 > /debian/debian-1.1.alpha -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > >Then, when 1.0 becomes the stable distribution, the symlinks >could change to: > > /debian/debian-stable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 # changed from tree1 > /debian/debian-0.93 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 # might be deleted > /debian/debian-1.1 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > >And no re-mirroring need occur. My comments about this remain as above. My suggestion provides the required functionality without creating `hidden' directories. -- Richard Kettlewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
Richard>0.93R6 -> Highgate Richard>Highgate/ [contains 0.93R6] Richard>Holborn/[contains what will be 1.0] Richard> and after the release: Richard>0.93R6 -> Highgate Richard>Highgate/ [contains 0.93R6] Richard>1.0 -> Holborn Richard>Holborn/[contains 1.0] 1.1 -> Mornington_Cresent. (Sorry, might amuse the Brits though :) alvar -- Alvar Bray Meiko LimitedPhone:+44 1454 616171 650 Aztec West Fax: +44 1454 618188 Bristol BS12 4SD E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] England WWW: http://www.meiko.com Via: Debian GNU/Linux from home.
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > That's essentially identical to what I was proposing with just two > practical differences: (1) it uses numbers rather than names and (2) > it goes to more effort to hide things. May be. I'm afraid I too-hurriedly deleted the message with your suggestion, and can't go back to re-read it to see if I misread it the first time through. The intended point of my suggestion, and you might have beaten me to this, was to have the real directory trees be named neutrally, so that their names wouldn't need to change, and use symlinks with meaningful names (which could be easily changed without causing massive re-mirroring) to point to them. > As to (1), I think names are better than numbers for various reasons: > it's easier to remember what they mean, and it gives us the option of > choosing some cute theme. I don't really have strong preferences at this point about what meaningful names are chosen for the symlinks. > As to (2), I'm not convinced about hiding things; what we actually > want is for people to look in the right place for a stable version > without having to think about it. If people actually want to live on > the bleeding edge, it shouldn't actually be any effort to do so - just > hard to do by accident. My suggestion, and the names I chose for illustration, was intended to show a structure which allowed that. Unfortunately, I see that I inadvertantly left out a directory level in some of my illustrative namings. Let me try again, with that mistake corrected (names shown below are intended to be illustrative. perhaps there are better choices for the symlink names. In any case, the symlink names would be changeable without causing massive re-mirroring.): /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1/ # full 0.093 tree /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2/ # full 1.1 tree /debian/debian-stable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 /debian/debian-unstable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 /debian/debian-0.93 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 /debian/debian-1.1.alpha -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 Then, when 1.0 becomes the stable distribution, the symlinks could change to: /debian/debian-stable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 # changed from tree1 /debian/debian-0.93 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 # might be deleted /debian/debian-1.1 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 And no re-mirroring need occur.
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
>It seems to me that a solution might be to put our real directory >trees in a hidden subdirectory with a neutral name, to name those >trees neutrally, and then to have meaningfully named (and easily >changed) symlinks pointing to them: Something like: > > /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1/ # full 0.093 tree > /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2/ # full 1.1 tree > /debian-stable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 > /debian-unstable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > /debian-0.93 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 > /debian-1.1.alpha -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > >Then, when 1.0 becomes the stable distribution, the symlinks >could change to: > > /debian-stable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > /debian-devel -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > /debian-0.93 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 # might be deleted > /debian-1.1 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > >Once a debian/.hidden/treeN tree is established, it should not be >renamed. That's essentially identical to what I was proposing with just two practical differences: (1) it uses numbers rather than names and (2) it goes to more effort to hide things. As to (1), I think names are better than numbers for various reasons: it's easier to remember what they mean, and it gives us the option of choosing some cute theme. As to (2), I'm not convinced about hiding things; what we actually want is for people to look in the right place for a stable version without having to think about it. If people actually want to live on the bleeding edge, it shouldn't actually be any effort to do so - just hard to do by accident. -- Richard Kettlewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > >On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote: > >>We can't put stuff like this where just anybody can download it any > >>longer. Especially, we can't do that and call it "1.0". This isn't > >>entirely Infomagic's fault, in my opinion. > >[...] > As I understand it, mirrors have some trouble with directories > changing names; so what we really want is a solution that keeps > directory names fixed. The suggestion below suffers here in that when > 1.0 is declared to be released, the directory has to change name from > not-released-1.0 to release-1.0. > > This could be solved with a symlink, obviously, but that still leaves > a directory called `not-released-1.0' containing released software, > which may be felt to be suboptimal. I was thinking about this last night. It seems to me that the root of the problem is that we have directory trees containing multiple distributions, have given those directories meaningful names, and those meaningful names have been taken by some people to to have different meanings than the meaning intended by the namer. Superseding those meaningful names with other names (which still have the possibility of being misinterpreted) causes massive re-mirroring. It seems to me that a solution might be to put our real directory trees in a hidden subdirectory with a neutral name, to name those trees neutrally, and then to have meaningfully named (and easily changed) symlinks pointing to them: Something like: /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1/ # full 0.093 tree /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2/ # full 1.1 tree /debian-stable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 /debian-unstable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 /debian-0.93 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 /debian-1.1.alpha -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 Then, when 1.0 becomes the stable distribution, the symlinks could change to: /debian-stable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 /debian-devel -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 /debian-0.93 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 # might be deleted /debian-1.1 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 Once a debian/.hidden/treeN tree is established, it should not be renamed.
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
Fernando Alegre writes: >On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote: >>We can't put stuff like this where just anybody can download it any >>longer. Especially, we can't do that and call it "1.0". This isn't >>entirely Infomagic's fault, in my opinion. > >I suggested some time ago to call the directories: > >release-0.93/ >not-released-1.0/ > >Maybe it was not such a bad idea... If I might just stick my oar in on this one: As I understand it, mirrors have some trouble with directories changing names; so what we really want is a solution that keeps directory names fixed. The suggestion below suffers here in that when 1.0 is declared to be released, the directory has to change name from not-released-1.0 to release-1.0. This could be solved with a symlink, obviously, but that still leaves a directory called `not-released-1.0' containing released software, which may be felt to be suboptimal. A common practice is to give unreleased products code names. (Remember Cairo, Daytona, etc...?) If we were to adopt this scheme then the unreleased software would just be a directory with a non-obvious name; each release would have a symlink containing the version number added when it was actually released. If the 0.93R6/1.0 situation were handled like this we'd have, before the release: 0.93R6 -> Highgate Highgate/ [contains 0.93R6] Holborn/[contains what will be 1.0] and after the release: 0.93R6 -> Highgate Highgate/ [contains 0.93R6] 1.0 -> Holborn Holborn/[contains 1.0] No renaming needed, no misleading filenames ... to find out what Highgate and Holborn were without going through symlinks you'd have to read a README which would also warn you about installing unreleased software. This idea went down quite well when discussed off-line last night - what does anyone else think? -- Richard Kettlewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
Surprisingly, they stopped their mirror on November 18, before we'd put all of the "README.DONT.USE.THIS" files and so on in place. If they'd seen that file they probably would not have copied the archive. I think having an ALPHA-TEST subdirectory is sufficiently clear. Bruce -- Visit the "Toy Story" Web Page! http://www.toystory.com
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Fernando Alegre wrote: > release-0.93/ > not-released-1.0/ The whole problem is nothing more than hindsite now, so lets drop it an update of whats is going to happen is forth coming. -- Matthew S. Bailey 107 Emmons Hall Central Michigan University Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope of this article.)
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote: [...] > We can't put stuff like this where just anybody can download it any > longer. Especially, we can't do that and call it "1.0". This isn't > entirely Infomagic's fault, in my opinion. I suggested some time ago to call the directories: release-0.93/ not-released-1.0/ Maybe it was not such a bad idea...
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
Another possibility is to have an unreadable directory named 1.0, with instructions in the README file on how to navigate through it. The idea being, if you don't read the instructions you don't see the files. -- Raul
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
Perhaps we should adopt a different naming convention for unreleased versions. E.g. instead of 1.0, call it 0.93+0.07, or 0.9x-unstable. -- Raul
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Ferguson) > I also feel that with 1.0 and all the new developers (myself included) that > all the normal users out there that would like to use 1.0 because of all the > new packages in there. However, if we dont leave open 1.0 to people who > arent devolpers (but wish to test and find bugs for us) then what are we to > do? We should have the developmental stuff available via a separate login. We can give that login out very freely, but we have to make it known when we give it out that it's not for CD, etc. If we change the password every few months, we can assure ourselves that the people who have legitimate access to it understand its status. Bruce -- Visit the "Toy Story" Web Page! http://www.toystory.com
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
PLEASE DON'T POST TO PUBLIC FORUMS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. PLEASE LEAVE THAT UP TO IAN MURDOCK AND MYSELF. WE SHOULD HAVE ONE COHERENT STATEMENT ON THIS, WHICH MEANS ONE PERSON GETS TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT. I spoke with Kim at Infomagic. Yes, they've pressed a CD with 1.0 on it, along with other distributions. Joel (also of Infomagic) will be calling me back later, and I'll have to speak with Ian Murdock (anyone have his new phone number - he moved last week). Then we will write an announcement to debian-announce and linux-announce to make it clear that this is development software and not suited for a non-debian-developer to install. I think they meant well, but putting someone's software on a CD without telling them is dumb. However, it won't help Debian if we make a lot of noise about it in a negative way. We can't put stuff like this where just anybody can download it any longer. Especially, we can't do that and call it "1.0". This isn't entirely Infomagic's fault, in my opinion. Thanks Bruce -- Visit the "Toy Story" Web Page! http://www.toystory.com
Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD
> Someone told me that Infomagic has announced a CD containing Debian 1.0, > available in about a week. This would be a real disaster, since 1.0 is far > from ready for anyone but a developer to use it. I will contact Infomagic, > and I think we'd better write an announcement to linux-announce after that > if they've already mastered the CD. > > I think also it's time to put non-released systems under password access. I was going to suggest with all these people querying about 1.0 that we have an an account on ftp.debian.org with access to debian-1.0 directory so we lock out normal public ftp access. I myself have noticed quite a few people coming in and nabbing 1.0 packages thinking that they were the ones to use (IGNORING the README-USE-0.93 stuff etc) only to find that they couldnt use it and come back to get the 0.93 packages. I'm not sure about mirrors though, I guess we'll have to lock them out as well because of the same reason - seems a pitty really. I also feel that with 1.0 and all the new developers (myself included) that all the normal users out there that would like to use 1.0 because of all the new packages in there. However, if we dont leave open 1.0 to people who arent devolpers (but wish to test and find bugs for us) then what are we to do? ...Karl -- | PO Box 828 Office: (09)316-3036 Fax: (09)381-3909 |OWER INTERNET SERVICES Canning Bridge After Hours: 015-779-828 WA, 6153 Sales Support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Service Providers and Networking Solutions
1.0 on Infomagic CD
Someone told me that Infomagic has announced a CD containing Debian 1.0, available in about a week. This would be a real disaster, since 1.0 is far from ready for anyone but a developer to use it. I will contact Infomagic, and I think we'd better write an announcement to linux-announce after that if they've already mastered the CD. I think also it's time to put non-released systems under password access. Thanks Bruce -- Visit the "Toy Story" Web Page! http://www.toystory.com
