On 28.05.2014 08:48, Roberto Galoppini wrote: > 2014-05-27 21:25 GMT+02:00 Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org>: >> Herbert Duerr wrote: >> [...] >> I'd like to clean up the "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" >>> and "packages" top-level directories by either >>> - removing them altogether >>> - recreate a 3.4.1 folder and remove the others >>> - recreate a 3.4.1 and an old-OOo folder and remove the others >>> >> >> Breaking existing links is very bad. If people are getting these files, we >> can't just remove them. I'd rather work on the causes (let's see what >> Danish looks like in one week) and we can add a README.txt or something if >> you believe people are browsing the SourceForge file tree and getting lost; >> but files are there, they are being heavily downloaded and removing there >> immediately would simply cause confusion.
People expecting these files there is a very good reason not to change it. I just have my doubts that they really want them. > Excellent analysis, and I totally agree on conclusions. I have a couple of > things to add: > > 1. we are open to investigate end-users' patterns if that helps, let me > know if any file in particular worth that All downloads in "localized", "stable", "extended", "contrib" or "packages" worth investigating, but the five files - localized/pl/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Win_x86_install_pl.exe - localized/es/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Win_x86_install_es.exe - localized/nb/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Win_x86_install_nb.exe - localized/nb/3.3.0/OOo_3.3.0_Win_x86_install-wJRE_nb.exe already cover more than half of the downloads in question, so knowing e.g. their referrer-headers would an interesting data point. > 2. we might use symlinks if we end up by figuring out that some behaviours > are 'wrong' (e.g. referrals) or just the result of people looking for > 'stable' versions Agreed. I'm quite sure these 4000 dubious downloads per day come from users that actually want something else if there weren't obsolete links and the misguidance caused by top-level directory names such as "stable" or "localized". Keeping these files there most likely causes more harm than good. We could of course link our localized builds into the localized folder. Why en-US isn't considered a localized build is beyond me though. And we could link our release builds in the "stable" directory. And in the "packages" directory. But IMHO work to provide three different ways instead of one to get the same binaries is wasted. It is confusing; especially in the "localized" directory there would be of a mixture of new release builds, of older unmaintained builds and of ancient release builds in the same directory. Herbert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
