On 2 September 2013 09:26, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/1/13 4:45 PM, janI wrote: >> 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. > > I think most of the downloads are going over SourceForge so having the > mirrors a little bit later in sync shouldn't be a big problem. > > I would prefer one simple to follow approach. And the synch is done in a > way that is suitable for the mirrors.
I think that rules out links, because of the problem of maintaing parity between artifacts and sigs/hashses. > A further question how do we count the downloads from the ASF mirrors or > can we count them at all? > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#downloads > >> >> >>> >>> 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). > > no, it goes automatically to archive as far as I know http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#how-to-archive and http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#when-to-archive [For projects with smaller footprints the old and new releases should normally overlap whilst the mirrors catch up.] > Juergen > >> >> 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 >>> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
