[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 1.0 on Infomagic CD

Fernando Alegre writes:
>On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
>>We can't put stuff like this where just anybody can download it any
>>longer. Especially, we can't do that and call it "1.0". This isn't
>>entirely Infomagic's fault, in my opinion.
>I suggested some time ago to call the directories:
>Maybe it was not such a bad idea...

If I might just stick my oar in on this one:

As I understand it, mirrors have some trouble with directories
changing names; so what we really want is a solution that keeps
directory names fixed.  The suggestion below suffers here in that when
1.0 is declared to be released, the directory has to change name from
not-released-1.0 to release-1.0.

This could be solved with a symlink, obviously, but that still leaves
a directory called `not-released-1.0' containing released software,
which may be felt to be suboptimal.

A common practice is to give unreleased products code names.
(Remember Cairo, Daytona, etc...?)  If we were to adopt this scheme
then the unreleased software would just be a directory with a
non-obvious name; each release would have a symlink containing the
version number added when it was actually released.

If the 0.93R6/1.0 situation were handled like this we'd have, before
the release:

	0.93R6 -> Highgate
	Highgate/		[contains 0.93R6]
	Holborn/		[contains what will be 1.0]

and after the release:

	0.93R6 -> Highgate
	Highgate/		[contains 0.93R6]
	1.0 -> Holborn
	Holborn/		[contains 1.0]

No renaming needed, no misleading filenames ... to find out what
Highgate and Holborn were without going through symlinks you'd have to
read a README which would also warn you about installing unreleased

This idea went down quite well when discussed off-line last night -
what does anyone else think?

Richard Kettlewell richard@uk.geeks.org http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/

Reply to: