On Saturday 25 July 2009 21:12:36 Zero3 wrote: > Matthew Toseland skrev: > > On Saturday 25 July 2009 20:48:05 Zero3 wrote: > >> Matthew Toseland skrev: > >>> On Wednesday 22 July 2009 15:41:54 brendan at artvote.com wrote: > >>>> Just curious, whom exactly does the 4 digit number benefit? Do users > >>>> care about this number? And if so why? (Sorry if these are dumb > >>>> questions. Just trying to wrap my head around the issue:) > >>>> -Brendan > >>> Basically the problem is the CDN we use (Google Code). A filename should > >>> uniquely identify its contents, when we change the contents we should > >>> change the filename. > >>> > >>> Is FreenetInstaller-0.7.5.1224.exe a problem? > >> IMHO an installer should always contain the version number in its name > >> so that there is no doubt about which version it contains. > > > > Yes, except possibly for download-the-installer-from-freenet? If it's > > fetched from the web interface we could do it there too though... > > I personally dislike when you have SomethingInstaller.exe and no idea > which version it contains (and if it is up to date according to whatever > latest version the website announces). Or even worse, 2x > SomethingInstaller.exe with different sizes and no idea which is latest. > > It's not a dealbreaker to me though. Whatever works out for you. > Distributing it over Freenet would be cool.
Okay so we'll just save to a version-dependant filename and delete the old versions. > > - Zero3 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090727/c2797d38/attachment.pgp>
