Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 01 November 2007 03:09, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>> --On Wednesday, October 31, 2007 16:24:16 -0700 Devrim GÜNDÜZ
>>>
>>> <devrim@CommandPrompt.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Darcy just pointed out that there is a problem with the beta2 directory
>>>> name for sources in the FTP sites. For beta1 , we have v8.3beta1, which
>>>> is the correct naming, and for beta2, we have v8.3beta .
>>>>
>>>> I first would just rename the directory, but again Darcy reminded that
>>>> the announcement text includes "v8.3beta" directory. We need to symlink
>>>> it to beta2 for now, and then create beta3 (or whatever) directory next
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> I'll create the symlink later today, unless someone objects.
>>> Do not create the symlink, the directory naming wasn't a mistake ... it
>>> was named without the trailing # at the request of JoshB, as it
>>> simplified pointing ppl to the binaries ... all future beta's will be put
>>> into the same directory, with the filenames themselves the only thing
>>> that will be changing ..
>> There's a big problem here, and that's that we are not consistent.
>> Things like that shouldn't just change "at the request of JoshB", it
>> should be discussed on the lists to determine all implications first...
>>
>
> hmm... istm i am not getting emails from Marc... *shrug*.
>
> Just to reiterate (since I brought this up when we released the announcement),
> we actually now have 2 different naming schemes; no # for the tarballs, and
> with a # for beta binaries. now *that* is silly, so let's get it together for
> beta3 eh?
>
> Personally I go +1 on having the # in the url, and I would also like to see
+1 (I'd + more than 1 if I could :-P)
> old beta directories removed once the new beta is out (someone looking
> in /source directory is bound to think /beta1 came after /beta based on
> sorting alone, and is there *any* reason we want people downloading beta1 at
> this point?)
+1 on that too.
//Magnus