On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:22:53 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
Changing download links for all existing releases (without a new
release)
sounds worse than having slightly inconsistent paths for a while.
I did not suggest to _delete_ anything.
Just that current archives should be accessible through both old and
new scripts. The latter not having to deal with the old layout.
Gilles
Moving the existing releases would also cause duplicates on
archive.apache.org (unless we ask INFRA to reorganise this as well,
which
would break even permalink downloads)
However it is also likely that some of the many stable commons
components
won't get a new release in a while (many releases are from 2013 or
2014),
so such inconsistency could take long to get rid off.
Would the mirror folks kill us if we do an svn symlinks from the
existing
releases to the new layout and let the existing stay until they have
been
replaced by newer versions? (This would add another 550 MB for
mirrors
that don't understand symlinks)
On 18 Apr 2016 09:55, "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:12:16 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
+1 for the change for future releases. Being able to do svn mv (or
rm) on
a
single folder simplifies releasing and reduces chance of errors.
I think that your remark below calls for making the changes for all
components right now.
Otherwise scripts will require to behave differently for different
components, and force maintainers modify them each time a component
adopts the new scheme.
The new directories should be created also for existing releases, so
that maintainers will have to change their scripts only once.
Gilles
Is the -src and -bin endings already used across all of Commons?
That would
be a bit more important without source/ and binaries/
(Do some have download artifacts beyond bin and src?)
I think it is important to mention this URL pattern change in
release
notes
for downstream distributors, e.g. Debian recipies that download
https://archive.apache.org/commons/foo/source/foo-${version}-src.tar.gz
(They have to use archive as older versions disappear from official
mirrors)
On 16 Apr 2016 00:02, "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
The dist layout currently splits archives into source/ and
binaries/.
Where there are multiple active versions, these are all in the
same
directory.
IMO this layout is not ideal any more.
It is harder to tidy up old releases (files have to be
individually
deleted)
It is harder to move files from dist/dev to dist/release
Are there any disadvantages to allowing the layout to change?
Unless there are objections, I propose to update the commons build
plugin to support download pages using version ids, e.g. instead
of
the present layout:
lang/source/commons-lang-2.6-src.*
lang/source/commons-lang3-3.4-src.*
lang/binaries/commons-lang-2.6-bin.*
lang/binaries/commons-lang3-3.4-bin.*
It would look like:
lang/commons-lang-2.6/commons-lang-2.6-[bin|src].*
lang/commons-lang3-3.4/commons-lang3-3.4-[bin|src].*
Note: I don't think we should move the existing releases
The intention is to allow new releases to optionally migrate to
the new
layout.
This would be done on the basis of a new property, e.g.
commons.release.layout=version
If the property is defined, then the new layout is used; if not,
then
the current source/binaries layout is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
