I agree with ant. I had an issue recently with SDO relying on a back-level release that had been removed. So I think the thing to do is to help new users avoid the trip hazard of inadvertently downloading a back level release by structuring our web pages helpfully.
Kelvin. On 30/08/2007, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Eclipse STP project isn't using M2 because they accidentally downloaded > the wrong release, its what was current at the time and they haven't > migrated to a newer release yet. I think its good to keep old releases to > (1) show the release history, and (2) have historical downloads available > for people working on back level systems. No problem with rearranging the > website if it makes the current release more obvious but i don't think old > ones should just be deleted or hidden. > > ...ant > > On 8/30/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'd like to bring this message back to life. A few users posted to the ML > > recently and asked about M2. Immediate response has been to use the latest > > since M2 is very old (IMHO makes sense). > > > > This email thread was suggesting to remove the download link of very old > > releases to avoid confusion. We can leave the release history in place to > > show that there was a release, but remove the link for download to avoid > > confusion. > > > > If everyone agrees, when does a link get removed, in other words, how old > > the release should be? > > > > For starter, M2 is based on an older version of the spec. Should we remove > > the download link? > > > > On 8/10/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 8/10/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > The latest release for each subproject is the preferred release to > > > > download. > > > > Does it make sense to keep links to download for old releases on the > > > > download page? This can give a wrong impression that these are also OK > > > to > > > > download. For example, for Java SCA there are still links to M1 and > > M2 > > > > from > > > > last year. Architecture has changed since then. > > > > > > > > Does it make sense to have the latest release and the previous release > > > as > > > > an > > > > option for download and leave everything else under history or remove > > > > them? > > > > > > > > Haleh > > > > > > > > > I think yes we should keep them. One of the first things I look at when > > > coming across an open source project is the release history as it gives > > > you > > > a good indication of how much life there is in the project. Maybe from > > > that > > > we don't need actual links to the download artifacts, but something > > > clearly > > > showing we do regular releases and have been doing so for years is a > > Good > > > Thing IMHO. Another reason is if someone is debugging some old system > > with > > > a > > > back level release they may need access to the source distro to debug > > the > > > code. > > > > > > ...ant > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
