Re: Wrong directory name for beta2

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(at)CommandPrompt(dot)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
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?)

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL