On 23 November 2013 17:18, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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. > +1 for this solution. If we can agree on it with lazy consensus I can write it down in INFRA-6654, and close it. rgds jan I. > > Regards, > Andrea. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
