Andrew Rist wrote:
On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
Not having the binaries on apache.org is for sure the simplest solution,
and if we can decide that, then I am sure infra wont have a problem.
Actually, it was Infra who pushed for having the Apache mirrors as a
secondary mirror network, after we followed their advice not to offer
binaries from the Apache mirrors as a primary channel due to
size/bandwidth constraints. I like the idea to have a secondary mirror
network at Apache, while I find it too much if this delays our releases
or requires us to change our processes.
what if we have single install with all langs at apache.org? that way
it is there, but considerably smaller from a real estate perspective but
allows us to preserve binaries.
For user downloads @ sourceforge, we continue to have the 1 per lang
downloads that focus on the user.
This sounds odd at first, but it could actually be a good solution. The
multi-language build can be added to the SourceForge ones with minimal
overhead, and it can be uploaded to the Apache mirrors very quickly. We
would still have the possibility (this is an important one) to measure
interest for the individual language builds by analyzing the SourceForge
download data, while we would have the multi-language build available on
both SF and Apache for archival and for those users who find this easier
than download language packs.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
