On 1 September 2013 15:31, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 5:42 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 1 September 2013 11:27, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi. > >> > >> I had a talk on #asfinfra today, regarding our upcomming 4.0.1 release. > >> > >> Sync on mirrors takes about a week, and the mirror can in general not > hold > >> 4.0 and 4.0.1 > >> > > Is this a change? The current published advice is that the mirrors > take no more than 24 hours to sync: > > https://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#distribution >
no actually not, the problem is the size of our distribution, with 4.0 it took 8 days and one Chinese mirror has not updated fully yet. > > >> Therefore the current suggestion is to > >> a) remove 4.0 from mirrors GA - 1week = 12 september > >> b) update 4.0.1 to mirrors GA = 19 september. > >> > >> The downside is that mirrors will have the 4.0 ready for download for > upto > >> a week. > >> > > The problem is we don't know for certain a GA date a week in advance. > We can just estimate. But as we saw with 4.0.0, a last minute defect > can delay things by a week or more. > We have a choice, we can wait until GA (as we did last time, where it took several weeks after GA before downloads were in place), or take a chance. I opt for the chance, I think it is important to have the mirrors in place when we announce our release. > > So in practice this means that there could be more than a week where > 4.0.0 is not on the mirrors. Maybe this is not a problem? > I hope not, we loose some downloads, but hopefully the users will try again. > > The two things to watch out for (and you have probably already > considered these, but I'll mention them just in case): > > 1) We should not remove the 4.0.0 hashes and signature files from > /dist. These are referenced even when the binaries are downloaded > from SourceForge. > @henkp: can you make sure of that, please > > 2) We need to make sure SourceForge is not rsyncing from /dist and > mirror the 4.0.0 removal. > I assume that will be the case. > > And I assume 4.0.1 goes to archive then? > If I remember right, we (andrea) have to move it to the archive (I presume you mean 4.0). rgds jan I. > > -Rob > > > >> An alternative suggestion, is to rename 4.0 to 4.0.x on the mirrors and > >> have a 4.0 symlink pointing at 4.0.x. > >> > >> That way, we simply replace the 4.0.x file, after GA, and mirrors do not > >> have a time without a package. > >> > >> I personally like the rename idea, so can we do lazy consensus on that ? > >> > >> I have updated issue 6654, and Henkp is copied on this mail. > >> > >> rgds > >> jan I > >> > > > > Second try, sorry for the first mail. > > > > I had a talk on #asfinfra today, regarding our upcomming 4.0.1 release. > > > > Sync on mirrors takes about a week, and the mirror can in general not > hold > > 4.0 and 4.0.1 > > > > Therefore the current suggestion is to > > a) remove 4.0 from mirrors GA - 1week = 12 september > > b) update 4.0.1 to mirrors GA = 19 september. > > > > The downside is that mirrors will have the 4.0 ready for download for > upto > > a week (SF will be faster). > > > > For 4.1 we should consider an alternative way. > > > > Use 4.1.x on the mirrors and have a 4.1 symlink pointing at 4.1.x. > > > > That way, we simply replace the 4.1.x file, after GA, and mirrors do not > > have a time without a package. > > > > That's an interesting approach that could work. > > -Rob > > > I have updated issue 6654, and Henkp is copied on this mail. > > > > rgds > > jan I >
