see below....
Marcus Lange wrote:
Kay Schenk wrote:
Hello Kay,
thanks for your input. I've commented it inline.
Due to this I think about a few requirements:
1. Avoid version numbers and strings in links
Any of you familiar with the actual directory structure of the
'download" directory will immediately note that the numbers are there
and, IMO, important to keep things straight. At least from the
depositors point of view. However, I have often wondered, and never
really got a an answer on, coming up with something similar to the
unix concepts of symbolic links to handle the actual web site links in
this regard. This would save us some hassle in the long run when new
versions emerge.
The problem with numbers is that you are stick forever when using links
to directories that are no longer relevant. The most prominent example
is 680.
This number was part of the SRC680 codeline for 2.x releases. Even in
the beginning of OOo 3.x this number was used and in the meantime it got
(kind of) replaced with 300 to make clear it is going to OOo 3.0. But
even this is getting slowly outdated. So, what will you do when we come
to OOo 4.x? Again rename to 400? ;-)
The bad side effect is that we have used the 680 in many links all over
the websites. These have to be replaced with the current number if you
won't create any dead links. Would you like to do this over and over
again when the number get renamed again? ;-)
That's the idea behind the deep wish to get rid of numbers in links. I'm
sorry if this wasn't clear enough at first.
I understand...however I think we can Do something about differentiating
the actual directory structure (maybe?) vs what the end user sees. I
thought, perhaps erroneously, that the current numbering structure was
what was preferred by our developers in terms of "deposits", and
therefore the current was sacred. But...this doesn't mean the end user
has to see things this way. Hence, I will try to experiment with
symlinks and let you all know about this. Even with symlinks, the user
will eventually "land on" a numbered directory but it might things less
confusing for the website maintainers.
Of course you can create symlinks. But a) I don't know if this is
working with CVS and the webserver and b) this will not solve the
problem because you have to create or change the symlink for new builds.
This is true....
IMHO it's the same when you create a new directory with a number or
create/change symlinks.
If you still want to differntiate between all codelines and avoid
numbers, then you have to use names that make clear what the
direction is like CURRENT, LATEST, FUTURE, NEXT, DEV, OOODEV, etc.
ICK!!!!!!!!
OK, but why? I don't see a real disadvantage of using a name that make
clear what the direction of development will be. Of course you can think
of other words/names if you like. :-)
Remember, this will just be a part of website URLs. It's not to rename
the codeline.
Best regards
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--
-------------------------------------------------
Kay Schenk
"The game of life is the game of boomerangs.
Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us
sooner or later, with astounding accuracy."
-- Florence Shinn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
