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

Reply via email to