Mark Phippard wrote: > Given that they are out of date and no longer maintained maybe we > should start by removing them from our current list of binary packages
You mean removing the two "Tigris.org" links from the "Windows" section of <http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html>? Yes, +1. > and see if the traffic for them goes down? I doubt that is where the > traffic is coming from but it is worth a try and I think it also makes > sense. > > Fellow SVN Devs: any objections to doing this? Well, if I were looking for a Windows package to download I'd be very likely to use that link, I think, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is where a lot of the traffic is coming from. - Julian > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010, Jack Repenning wrote: > > It turns out that there are still quite a few folks downloading the > rather stale-ish binary packages still stored on Tigris (Subversion > installers and language bindings). We see around 40,000 downloads of > these files per week, even though the newest is version 1.6.6. This is > probably mostly confusion. I wonder if we shouldn't do something to > un-confuse all these people? > > > > What I'd propose would be: > > 1. move these packages to some other directory, that a bit more > clearly shows their status (such as the existing "Windows Archive" > one) > > 2. Put something (banner note, or URL-reference, something like > that) into the folder to direct lost wanderers to packages.html or > similar. > > > > Sound reasonable? Additional thoughts? I'm happy to do the work. > > > > Background: > > > > There are, of course, other places with newer packages available. I > don't really know why people keep downloading the new ones (and > non-trivial numbers are still downloading Really Old Ones, even back > into "releases" 0.X.X). A few of these downloads are probably people > who know what they're doing -- testing against old versions, for > example, to isolate when a problem first arose. But 40K/week? I don't > think so! > > > > Mark Phippard and DJ Heap both suspect these are, fundamentally, > some sort of confusion: people think Tigris is "the official source," > or something like that. I had thought there might be some deeper > reason, such as preferring the packaging format, but they talked me > out of that.
