Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > I just added the current version information to the mirror page, > so when you go to that page, you see to which version "latest" > relates. > > Thanks for the hint.
That is a bit better, but Andrew hints at other issues. When they download the archive, then the filename just says "latest" on their disk. Sure, they should just rename it with a version number. He also refers to the problem when you browse the "cocoon/" directory "Latest releases and milestones" there may be confusion. Why do we need the "latest"? They can easily see by the date and version number. I suppose that it adds one more task to our release process to modify the mirror.html page. --David > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:22 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [ANN] Apache Cocoon 2.1.3 Released > > > > > > Hi, > > > > With all due respect can I suggest that the current way of distributing > > Cocoon is plain daft! > > > > On http://cocoon.apache.org/mirror.cgi there is a file > > cocoon-latest-src.zip. Great until a week or a month or 2 months down the > > line. When the latest file will, presumably, still be > > cocoon-latest-src.zip. > > > > So, how do I easily tell then whether I need to download and upgrade? I > > can't, at least not easily. > > > > Why not use the traditional system of giving the version a > > NUMBER? It allows > > comparison of whether I have, or have not, the latest version. > > > > Yes, I found that there is a numbered version of 2.1.3 at > > http://ftp.plig.org/pub/apache/dist/cocoon/SOURCES/ but why use this silly > > cocoon-latest-src.zip idea at all? Good for lazy Web page authors > > who don't > > want to have to update the page perhaps? But not good for users. > > > > It just seems daft to me. > > > > Andrew Watt > > P.S. I *do* appreciate the good work you guys do, but "little things" like > > this are very frustrating. > >
