Обсуждение: Old versions directories on the ftp site
We have a policy to keep two (IIRC) versions of each version in the ftp site. How about we stick a README file in all the ones that are not current saying something along the line of "NOTE! This is an old release available for historical reasons only. You should probably use the latest one". That will automatically render it up on the website, which should make it at least theoretically possible that someone reads it.. Comments? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > We have a policy to keep two (IIRC) versions of each version in the > ftp site. How about we stick a README file in all the ones that are > not current saying something along the line of "NOTE! This is an old > release available for historical reasons only. You should probably use > the latest one". That will automatically render it up on the website, > which should make it at least theoretically possible that someone > reads it.. > > Comments? +1 If we could have the README contents appear ABOVE the contents of the directory, that would be ideal. -selena -- http://chesnok.com/daily - me
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> We have a policy to keep two (IIRC) versions of each version in the
> ftp site. How about we stick a README file in all the ones that are
> not current saying something along the line of "NOTE! This is an old
> release available for historical reasons only. You should probably use
> the latest one". That will automatically render it up on the website,
> which should make it at least theoretically possible that someone
> reads it..
I thought all the really old versions were pushed over to ftp-archive
already?
I should think that someone who chooses to look into an 8.1
subdirectory, when there are 8.2 etc right next to it, is already
well aware that he's grabbing an old version. I'm not sure that
this proposal offers more than an annoying nag message.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> We have a policy to keep two (IIRC) versions of each version in the >> ftp site. How about we stick a README file in all the ones that are >> not current saying something along the line of "NOTE! This is an old >> release available for historical reasons only. You should probably use >> the latest one". That will automatically render it up on the website, >> which should make it at least theoretically possible that someone >> reads it.. > > I thought all the really old versions were pushed over to ftp-archive > already? > > I should think that someone who chooses to look into an 8.1 > subdirectory, when there are 8.2 etc right next to it, is already > well aware that he's grabbing an old version. I'm not sure that > this proposal offers more than an annoying nag message. I think the point was for links sent out in release messages (only 2 weeks old in this case for 9.0), and they go directly to 9.0.0 directory, missing 9.0.1. For example, the release linked:http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/v9.0.0/ So, if you went directly there, there's no indication a newer release is available. -selena -- http://chesnok.com/daily - me
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 19:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> We have a policy to keep two (IIRC) versions of each version in the >> ftp site. How about we stick a README file in all the ones that are >> not current saying something along the line of "NOTE! This is an old >> release available for historical reasons only. You should probably use >> the latest one". That will automatically render it up on the website, >> which should make it at least theoretically possible that someone >> reads it.. > > I thought all the really old versions were pushed over to ftp-archive > already? > > I should think that someone who chooses to look into an 8.1 > subdirectory, when there are 8.2 etc right next to it, is already > well aware that he's grabbing an old version. I'm not sure that > this proposal offers more than an annoying nag message. I'm not talking about 8.1 vs 8.2. I'm talking about 8.4.3 vs 8.4.5. And I'm aiming at people following direct links from other sites (or our own news) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 19:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I should think that someone who chooses to look into an 8.1
>> subdirectory, when there are 8.2 etc right next to it, is already
>> well aware that he's grabbing an old version.
> I'm not talking about 8.1 vs 8.2. I'm talking about 8.4.3 vs 8.4.5.
> And I'm aiming at people following direct links from other sites (or
> our own news)
Oh, I see. But it's going to be a bit of a problem to remember to
update such readmes in all those subdirectories. Are you planning to
automate it?
regards, tom lane
On 05/10/2010 18:50, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 19:44, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>> We have a policy to keep two (IIRC) versions of each version in the >>> ftp site. How about we stick a README file in all the ones that are >>> not current saying something along the line of "NOTE! This is an old >>> release available for historical reasons only. You should probably use >>> the latest one". That will automatically render it up on the website, >>> which should make it at least theoretically possible that someone >>> reads it.. >> >> I thought all the really old versions were pushed over to ftp-archive >> already? >> >> I should think that someone who chooses to look into an 8.1 >> subdirectory, when there are 8.2 etc right next to it, is already >> well aware that he's grabbing an old version. I'm not sure that >> this proposal offers more than an annoying nag message. > > I'm not talking about 8.1 vs 8.2. I'm talking about 8.4.3 vs 8.4.5. > And I'm aiming at people following direct links from other sites (or > our own news) Would there be merit in redirecting people looking for, say, 8.4.3 to 8.4.latest? Ray. -- Raymond O'Donnell :: Galway :: Ireland rod@iol.ie
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 19:55, Raymond O'Donnell <rod@iol.ie> wrote: > On 05/10/2010 18:50, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 19:44, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> >>> Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>>> >>>> We have a policy to keep two (IIRC) versions of each version in the >>>> ftp site. How about we stick a README file in all the ones that are >>>> not current saying something along the line of "NOTE! This is an old >>>> release available for historical reasons only. You should probably use >>>> the latest one". That will automatically render it up on the website, >>>> which should make it at least theoretically possible that someone >>>> reads it.. >>> >>> I thought all the really old versions were pushed over to ftp-archive >>> already? >>> >>> I should think that someone who chooses to look into an 8.1 >>> subdirectory, when there are 8.2 etc right next to it, is already >>> well aware that he's grabbing an old version. I'm not sure that >>> this proposal offers more than an annoying nag message. >> >> I'm not talking about 8.1 vs 8.2. I'm talking about 8.4.3 vs 8.4.5. >> And I'm aiming at people following direct links from other sites (or >> our own news) > > Would there be merit in redirecting people looking for, say, 8.4.3 to > 8.4.latest? Automatic redirection - absolutely not, then how would they get to the old version if they *need* it. Suggest they go look elsewhere - well, that's what I'm suggesting :-) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Raymond O'Donnell <rod@iol.ie> wrote: > Would there be merit in redirecting people looking for, say, 8.4.3 > to 8.4.latest? As already mentioned, automatic redirection wouldn't be good. Would it make sense to have a URL with "current" or "latest" in it? If we published that, it wouldn't get stale, and people wouldn't have to navigate around to find the latest. We do something similar for documentation: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/index.html -Kevin
On 05/10/2010 19:03, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Raymond O'Donnell<rod@iol.ie> wrote: > >> Would there be merit in redirecting people looking for, say, 8.4.3 >> to 8.4.latest? > > As already mentioned, automatic redirection wouldn't be good. Would > it make sense to have a URL with "current" or "latest" in it? If we > published that, it wouldn't get stale, and people wouldn't have to > navigate around to find the latest. +1 Makes more sense than my original suggestion. :-) Ray. -- Raymond O'Donnell :: Galway :: Ireland rod@iol.ie
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Raymond O'Donnell <rod@iol.ie> wrote: > On 05/10/2010 19:03, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> >> Raymond O'Donnell<rod@iol.ie> wrote: >> >>> Would there be merit in redirecting people looking for, say, 8.4.3 >>> to 8.4.latest? >> >> As already mentioned, automatic redirection wouldn't be good. Would >> it make sense to have a URL with "current" or "latest" in it? If we >> published that, it wouldn't get stale, and people wouldn't have to >> navigate around to find the latest. > > +1 > > Makes more sense than my original suggestion. :-) We used to have a "latest", but it seems to have vanished. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > I'm not talking about 8.1 vs 8.2. I'm talking about 8.4.3 vs 8.4.5. > And I'm aiming at people following direct links from other sites (or > our own news) I don't know why we keep *any* old revisions around in plain easy site. It just clutters things up, IMO, and shouldn't we be strongly encouraging people to grab the latest and greatest? - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201010051630 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAkyrivMACgkQvJuQZxSWSsg6FwCff/4i4ub8XfKmPD/8PaJeR+1C lQoAmgPwGVf/DLxrbj97uXAU6Gp4x0rG =Nsu5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 19:20 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > We have a policy to keep two (IIRC) versions of each version in the > ftp site. How about we stick a README file in all the ones that are > not current saying something along the line of "NOTE! This is an old > release available for historical reasons only. You should probably use > the latest one". That will automatically render it up on the website, > which should make it at least theoretically possible that someone > reads it.. > > Comments? Maybe we should use symlinks, like v8.4 -> v8.4.5 v9.0 -> v9.0.1 so, when every time someone searches for latest 9.0, he/she will get the latest 9.0.X. ...and as Tom mentioned, we need to push old releases to ftp-archives -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
2010/10/6 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: > On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 19:20 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> We have a policy to keep two (IIRC) versions of each version in the >> ftp site. How about we stick a README file in all the ones that are >> not current saying something along the line of "NOTE! This is an old >> release available for historical reasons only. You should probably use >> the latest one". That will automatically render it up on the website, >> which should make it at least theoretically possible that someone >> reads it.. >> >> Comments? > > Maybe we should use symlinks, like > > v8.4 -> v8.4.5 > v9.0 -> v9.0.1 > > so, when every time someone searches for latest 9.0, he/she will get the > latest 9.0.X. Symlinks sound good - but do we still need to automate their management somehow? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 11:25 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Symlinks sound good - but do we still need to automate their > management somehow? Marc can add it to "move tarballs to FTP site" procedure, maybe? -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz