You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> on 2012/08/23 21:27:58 UTC
proposed new directory structure for future releases
Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
/stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
/localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're still
being used
Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed structure,
on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to work on
modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
take it or leave it. "
-- Buddy Hackett
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 23 August 2012 21:14, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 08/23/2012 10:02 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, RGB ES<rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2012/8/23 Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
>>>> release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
>>>>
>>>> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
>>>> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
>>>>
>>>> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're
>>>> still
>>>> being used
>>>>
>>>> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed
>>>> structure,
>>>> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to work on
>>>> modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> MzK
>>>>
>>>> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
>>>> take it or leave it. "
>>>> -- Buddy Hackett
>>>
>>>
>>> Warning: Layman comment following.
>>>
>>> Even if en-US is the base for all the other builds, I see no need to
>>> completely separate it from the rest. IMO, a structure like
>>>
>>> /stable/VERSION/<lang abbreviation>/etcetera
>>>
>>> were<lang abbreviation> includes en-US at the same level of all the
>>> other localizations would be perfectly clear to anyone.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> This weird split complicates scripting operations on the tree.
>>
>> We could probably also eliminate the base of "/stable". We don't
>> release unstable code, do we?
>
>
> I don't know if it's wanted by us or allowed by ASF:
>
> We could release Beta versions or RCs in a different dir than stable/.
>
> Then it would make sense to keep it. Otherwise you are right.
>
>
>> At a level higher we have another split, between source and binaries,
>> where binaries are in "/files" and source is in VERSION.
>>
>> So:
>>
>> /ooo/3.4.1/source here
>> /ooo/files/stable/de/3.4.1/binaries here
>>
>> This might be harmonized as:
>>
>> /ooo/VERSION/src
>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/LANG/
>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/SDK
>
>
> Or just
>
> /ooo/VERSION/
>
> to get the most flat structure.
>
> Maybe
>
> /ooo/VERSION/src/
> /ooo/VERSION/bin/
>
> if it's needed to separate source and binary files.
Having a top-level version dir works well with svnpubsub.
The staging directory is at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/
and the release (live) dirs are at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/
This makes it particularly easy in to rename dev/version/ to
release/version/ once a release vote passes, as there is a containing
folder for everything.
Other arrangements are possible, but are harder to promote from dev/ to release/
As to non-GA builds, several other TLPs release -ALPHA and -BETA
versions; if such suffices are included in the folder and artifact
version names it makes the status obvious.
> Marcus
>
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/24/2012 12:42 PM, schrieb sebb:
> On 24 August 2012 10:08, Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/23/12 11:37 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/23/2012 01:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>> Am 08/23/2012 10:02 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, RGB ES<rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 2012/8/23 Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
>>>>>>> release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
>>>>>>> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> being used
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed
>>>>>>> structure,
>>>>>>> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to
>>>>>>> work on
>>>>>>> modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MzK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
>>>>>>> take it or leave it. "
>>>>>>> -- Buddy Hackett
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warning: Layman comment following.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if en-US is the base for all the other builds, I see no need to
>>>>>> completely separate it from the rest. IMO, a structure like
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /stable/VERSION/<lang abbreviation>/etcetera
>>>>>>
>>>>>> were<lang abbreviation> includes en-US at the same level of all the
>>>>>> other localizations would be perfectly clear to anyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> This weird split complicates scripting operations on the tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could probably also eliminate the base of "/stable". We don't
>>>>> release unstable code, do we?
>>>
>>> correct, and I think the schema that RGB currently proposes without the
>>> "/stable" is what Juergen basically proposed if memory serves.
>>> (I'm too lazy to go look for it. :/ )
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if it's wanted by us or allowed by ASF:
>>>>
>>>> We could release Beta versions or RCs in a different dir than stable/.
>>>>
>>>> Then it would make sense to keep it. Otherwise you are right.
>>>
>>> Right now, since we are not releasing "betas" and I don't see this
>>> happening in the future given the ASF definition of "release", we have
>>> no need for a "/stable" vs anything else.
>>
>> more or less but with going back to my proposal I think Rob made a good
>> proposal with some minimal but useful differentiation. The only thing I
>> woudl change is src = source because we already have it ;-)
>>
>> /ooo/<VERSION>/source
>> /ooo/<VERSION>/bin/<LANG>/
>> /ooo/<VERSION>/bin/SDK/
>
> It might be better to use "binaries".
> This is often used by ASF projects.
> It is plural because there are often multiple builds.
>
> It also cannot be confused with bin = wastebin.
> [In the US they use can == trashcan; the UK use bin == wastebin]
>
> Now -src and -bin are fine as part of a file name, but might be
> misinterpreted as a folder name.
>
> For developers, /bin/ has very different connotations (/usr/bin etc),
> but for end-users, they might be wary of downloading something that
> comes from what might as well be called:
>
> /ooo/<VERSION>/trash/
> or
> /ooo/<VERSION>/waste/
>
> Just a thought.
OK, understood. However, the goal is to point the normal, average
enduser never to the raw mirror server, but only to some webpages they
can click on. Here we can use longer, explaining text.
So, with this in mind it doesn't matter if you write "bin" or "binaries".
Of course, IMHO.
Marcus
>>>>> At a level higher we have another split, between source and binaries,
>>>>> where binaries are in "/files" and source is in VERSION.
>>>>>
>>>>> So:
>>>>>
>>>>> /ooo/3.4.1/source here
>>>>> /ooo/files/stable/de/3.4.1/binaries here
>>>>>
>>>>> This might be harmonized as:
>>>>>
>>>>> /ooo/VERSION/src
>>>>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/LANG/
>>>>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/SDK
>>>
>>> yes. Hopefully Juergen will weigh in soonish.
>>>
>>
>> not really necessary, I think we are more or less all on the same track ;-)
>>
>> Juergen (who is moving slowly over in vacation mode)
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or just
>>>>
>>>> /ooo/VERSION/
>>>>
>>>> to get the most flat structure.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe
>>>>
>>>> /ooo/VERSION/src/
>>>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/
>>>>
>>>> if it's needed to separate source and binary files.
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 24 August 2012 10:08, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/23/12 11:37 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/23/2012 01:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>> Am 08/23/2012 10:02 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, RGB ES<rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2012/8/23 Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
>>>>>> release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
>>>>>> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> being used
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed
>>>>>> structure,
>>>>>> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to
>>>>>> work on
>>>>>> modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MzK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
>>>>>> take it or leave it. "
>>>>>> -- Buddy Hackett
>>>>>
>>>>> Warning: Layman comment following.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if en-US is the base for all the other builds, I see no need to
>>>>> completely separate it from the rest. IMO, a structure like
>>>>>
>>>>> /stable/VERSION/<lang abbreviation>/etcetera
>>>>>
>>>>> were<lang abbreviation> includes en-US at the same level of all the
>>>>> other localizations would be perfectly clear to anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> This weird split complicates scripting operations on the tree.
>>>>
>>>> We could probably also eliminate the base of "/stable". We don't
>>>> release unstable code, do we?
>>
>> correct, and I think the schema that RGB currently proposes without the
>> "/stable" is what Juergen basically proposed if memory serves.
>> (I'm too lazy to go look for it. :/ )
>>
>>>
>>> I don't know if it's wanted by us or allowed by ASF:
>>>
>>> We could release Beta versions or RCs in a different dir than stable/.
>>>
>>> Then it would make sense to keep it. Otherwise you are right.
>>
>> Right now, since we are not releasing "betas" and I don't see this
>> happening in the future given the ASF definition of "release", we have
>> no need for a "/stable" vs anything else.
>
> more or less but with going back to my proposal I think Rob made a good
> proposal with some minimal but useful differentiation. The only thing I
> woudl change is src = source because we already have it ;-)
>
> /ooo/<VERSION>/source
> /ooo/<VERSION>/bin/<LANG>/
> /ooo/<VERSION>/bin/SDK/
It might be better to use "binaries".
This is often used by ASF projects.
It is plural because there are often multiple builds.
It also cannot be confused with bin = wastebin.
[In the US they use can == trashcan; the UK use bin == wastebin]
Now -src and -bin are fine as part of a file name, but might be
misinterpreted as a folder name.
For developers, /bin/ has very different connotations (/usr/bin etc),
but for end-users, they might be wary of downloading something that
comes from what might as well be called:
/ooo/<VERSION>/trash/
or
/ooo/<VERSION>/waste/
Just a thought.
>>
>>>
>>>> At a level higher we have another split, between source and binaries,
>>>> where binaries are in "/files" and source is in VERSION.
>>>>
>>>> So:
>>>>
>>>> /ooo/3.4.1/source here
>>>> /ooo/files/stable/de/3.4.1/binaries here
>>>>
>>>> This might be harmonized as:
>>>>
>>>> /ooo/VERSION/src
>>>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/LANG/
>>>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/SDK
>>
>> yes. Hopefully Juergen will weigh in soonish.
>>
>
> not really necessary, I think we are more or less all on the same track ;-)
>
> Juergen (who is moving slowly over in vacation mode)
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Or just
>>>
>>> /ooo/VERSION/
>>>
>>> to get the most flat structure.
>>>
>>> Maybe
>>>
>>> /ooo/VERSION/src/
>>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/
>>>
>>> if it's needed to separate source and binary files.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>
>
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/23/12 11:37 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On 08/23/2012 01:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 08/23/2012 10:02 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, RGB ES<rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2012/8/23 Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
>>>>> release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
>>>>>
>>>>> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
>>>>> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
>>>>>
>>>>> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're
>>>>> still
>>>>> being used
>>>>>
>>>>> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed
>>>>> structure,
>>>>> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to
>>>>> work on
>>>>> modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> MzK
>>>>>
>>>>> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
>>>>> take it or leave it. "
>>>>> -- Buddy Hackett
>>>>
>>>> Warning: Layman comment following.
>>>>
>>>> Even if en-US is the base for all the other builds, I see no need to
>>>> completely separate it from the rest. IMO, a structure like
>>>>
>>>> /stable/VERSION/<lang abbreviation>/etcetera
>>>>
>>>> were<lang abbreviation> includes en-US at the same level of all the
>>>> other localizations would be perfectly clear to anyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> This weird split complicates scripting operations on the tree.
>>>
>>> We could probably also eliminate the base of "/stable". We don't
>>> release unstable code, do we?
>
> correct, and I think the schema that RGB currently proposes without the
> "/stable" is what Juergen basically proposed if memory serves.
> (I'm too lazy to go look for it. :/ )
>
>>
>> I don't know if it's wanted by us or allowed by ASF:
>>
>> We could release Beta versions or RCs in a different dir than stable/.
>>
>> Then it would make sense to keep it. Otherwise you are right.
>
> Right now, since we are not releasing "betas" and I don't see this
> happening in the future given the ASF definition of "release", we have
> no need for a "/stable" vs anything else.
more or less but with going back to my proposal I think Rob made a good
proposal with some minimal but useful differentiation. The only thing I
woudl change is src = source because we already have it ;-)
/ooo/<VERSION>/source
/ooo/<VERSION>/bin/<LANG>/
/ooo/<VERSION>/bin/SDK/
>
>>
>>> At a level higher we have another split, between source and binaries,
>>> where binaries are in "/files" and source is in VERSION.
>>>
>>> So:
>>>
>>> /ooo/3.4.1/source here
>>> /ooo/files/stable/de/3.4.1/binaries here
>>>
>>> This might be harmonized as:
>>>
>>> /ooo/VERSION/src
>>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/LANG/
>>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/SDK
>
> yes. Hopefully Juergen will weigh in soonish.
>
not really necessary, I think we are more or less all on the same track ;-)
Juergen (who is moving slowly over in vacation mode)
>
>>
>> Or just
>>
>> /ooo/VERSION/
>>
>> to get the most flat structure.
>>
>> Maybe
>>
>> /ooo/VERSION/src/
>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/
>>
>> if it's needed to separate source and binary files.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 08/23/2012 01:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 08/23/2012 10:02 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, RGB ES<rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2012/8/23 Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>:
>>>> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
>>>> release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
>>>>
>>>> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
>>>> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
>>>>
>>>> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're
>>>> still
>>>> being used
>>>>
>>>> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed
>>>> structure,
>>>> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to
>>>> work on
>>>> modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> MzK
>>>>
>>>> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
>>>> take it or leave it. "
>>>> -- Buddy Hackett
>>>
>>> Warning: Layman comment following.
>>>
>>> Even if en-US is the base for all the other builds, I see no need to
>>> completely separate it from the rest. IMO, a structure like
>>>
>>> /stable/VERSION/<lang abbreviation>/etcetera
>>>
>>> were<lang abbreviation> includes en-US at the same level of all the
>>> other localizations would be perfectly clear to anyone.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> This weird split complicates scripting operations on the tree.
>>
>> We could probably also eliminate the base of "/stable". We don't
>> release unstable code, do we?
correct, and I think the schema that RGB currently proposes without the
"/stable" is what Juergen basically proposed if memory serves.
(I'm too lazy to go look for it. :/ )
>
> I don't know if it's wanted by us or allowed by ASF:
>
> We could release Beta versions or RCs in a different dir than stable/.
>
> Then it would make sense to keep it. Otherwise you are right.
Right now, since we are not releasing "betas" and I don't see this
happening in the future given the ASF definition of "release", we have
no need for a "/stable" vs anything else.
>
>> At a level higher we have another split, between source and binaries,
>> where binaries are in "/files" and source is in VERSION.
>>
>> So:
>>
>> /ooo/3.4.1/source here
>> /ooo/files/stable/de/3.4.1/binaries here
>>
>> This might be harmonized as:
>>
>> /ooo/VERSION/src
>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/LANG/
>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/SDK
yes. Hopefully Juergen will weigh in soonish.
>
> Or just
>
> /ooo/VERSION/
>
> to get the most flat structure.
>
> Maybe
>
> /ooo/VERSION/src/
> /ooo/VERSION/bin/
>
> if it's needed to separate source and binary files.
>
> Marcus
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
take it or leave it. "
-- Buddy Hackett
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/23/2012 10:02 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, RGB ES<rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2012/8/23 Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>:
>>> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
>>> release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
>>>
>>> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
>>> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
>>>
>>> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're still
>>> being used
>>>
>>> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed structure,
>>> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to work on
>>> modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
>>> take it or leave it. "
>>> -- Buddy Hackett
>>
>> Warning: Layman comment following.
>>
>> Even if en-US is the base for all the other builds, I see no need to
>> completely separate it from the rest. IMO, a structure like
>>
>> /stable/VERSION/<lang abbreviation>/etcetera
>>
>> were<lang abbreviation> includes en-US at the same level of all the
>> other localizations would be perfectly clear to anyone.
>>
>
> +1
>
> This weird split complicates scripting operations on the tree.
>
> We could probably also eliminate the base of "/stable". We don't
> release unstable code, do we?
I don't know if it's wanted by us or allowed by ASF:
We could release Beta versions or RCs in a different dir than stable/.
Then it would make sense to keep it. Otherwise you are right.
> At a level higher we have another split, between source and binaries,
> where binaries are in "/files" and source is in VERSION.
>
> So:
>
> /ooo/3.4.1/source here
> /ooo/files/stable/de/3.4.1/binaries here
>
> This might be harmonized as:
>
> /ooo/VERSION/src
> /ooo/VERSION/bin/LANG/
> /ooo/VERSION/bin/SDK
Or just
/ooo/VERSION/
to get the most flat structure.
Maybe
/ooo/VERSION/src/
/ooo/VERSION/bin/
if it's needed to separate source and binary files.
Marcus
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/8/23 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
>> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
>> release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
>>
>> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
>> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
>>
>> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're still
>> being used
>>
>> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed structure,
>> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to work on
>> modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
>> take it or leave it. "
>> -- Buddy Hackett
>
> Warning: Layman comment following.
>
> Even if en-US is the base for all the other builds, I see no need to
> completely separate it from the rest. IMO, a structure like
>
> /stable/VERSION/<lang abbreviation>/etcetera
>
> were <lang abbreviation> includes en-US at the same level of all the
> other localizations would be perfectly clear to anyone.
>
+1
This weird split complicates scripting operations on the tree.
We could probably also eliminate the base of "/stable". We don't
release unstable code, do we?
At a level higher we have another split, between source and binaries,
where binaries are in "/files" and source is in VERSION.
So:
/ooo/3.4.1/source here
/ooo/files/stable/de/3.4.1/binaries here
This might be harmonized as:
/ooo/VERSION/src
/ooo/VERSION/bin/LANG/
/ooo/VERSION/bin/SDK
-Rob
> Regards
> Ricardo
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/8/23 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
> release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
>
> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
>
> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're still
> being used
>
> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed structure,
> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to work on
> modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
> take it or leave it. "
> -- Buddy Hackett
Warning: Layman comment following.
Even if en-US is the base for all the other builds, I see no need to
completely separate it from the rest. IMO, a structure like
/stable/VERSION/<lang abbreviation>/etcetera
were <lang abbreviation> includes en-US at the same level of all the
other localizations would be perfectly clear to anyone.
Regards
Ricardo
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 08/26/2012 02:26 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 08/25/2012 01:28 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 23/08/2012 22:06, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also IMHO no need to separate between the languages.
> >>>>>> Furthermore, when you have to check for a potential error, then you
> you
> >>>>>> just need to verify this in a single directory and not more.
> >>>>>> /stable/VERSION/<all and every install file>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The rest is OK, but removing even the languages subdirectories is
> >>>>> probably too much: we already have 20 languages and they could
> >>>>> theoretically reach 100+, so it would make sense to preserve the
> >>>>> individual subdirectories "en-US", "de", "it" and so on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Andrea.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 with Andrea on this one. We should leave the languages in separate
> >>>> directories. And, if folks do "browsing" on SourceForge instead of
> using
> >>>> our
> >>>> download logic, this will make things easier for that purpose as well.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> It also makes it easier if someone wants to burn a CD for just a
> >>> single language.
> >>>
> >>
> >> OK, so our most recent opinion is the following:
> >>
> >> /stable/VERSION/<lang_id>/...
> >>
> >> Anyone else with different suggestions?
> >>
> >> Marcus
> >>
> >>
> > I think we were going to drop "stable" and just go with something like
> >
> > /ooo/<VERSION>/source
> > /ooo/<VERSION>/bin/<LANG>/
> > /ooo/<VERSION>/bin/SDK/
> >
> > ...and there was some further discussion on the use of "bin".
> >
> > At any rate, since we only distribute "stable", this is redundant, so we
> > don't need it, and shouldn't have it.
> >
> > Really I like the idea of "bin" to distinguish from source. As long as
> most
> > people continue to download from www.openoffice.org, it is certainly
> not a
> > problem. But, maybe a bit more discussion on this aspect.
>
> s/bin/binaries/
>
>
> /ooo/<VERSION>/source
> /ooo/<VERSION>/binaries/<LANG>/
> /ooo/<VERSION>/binaries/SDK/
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
yes, that would definitely solve the "bin" double meaning...I thought of
this but I'm happy you suggested it...
OK, can we just go with this new naming scheme, so we can get to work on it?
>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
> > take it or leave it. "
> > -- Buddy Hackett
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
take it or leave it. "
-- Buddy Hackett
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Aug 26, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 08/26/2012 02:26 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/25/2012 01:28 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23/08/2012 22:06, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also IMHO no need to separate between the languages.
>>>>>> Furthermore, when you have to check for a potential error, then you you
>>>>>> just need to verify this in a single directory and not more.
>>>>>> /stable/VERSION/<all and every install file>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest is OK, but removing even the languages subdirectories is
>>>>> probably too much: we already have 20 languages and they could
>>>>> theoretically reach 100+, so it would make sense to preserve the
>>>>> individual subdirectories "en-US", "de", "it" and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1 with Andrea on this one. We should leave the languages in separate
>>>> directories. And, if folks do "browsing" on SourceForge instead of using
>>>> our
>>>> download logic, this will make things easier for that purpose as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> It also makes it easier if someone wants to burn a CD for just a
>>> single language.
>>>
>>
>> OK, so our most recent opinion is the following:
>>
>> /stable/VERSION/<lang_id>/...
>>
>> Anyone else with different suggestions?
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
> I think we were going to drop "stable" and just go with something like
>
> /ooo/<VERSION>/source
> /ooo/<VERSION>/bin/<LANG>/
> /ooo/<VERSION>/bin/SDK/
>
> ...and there was some further discussion on the use of "bin".
>
> At any rate, since we only distribute "stable", this is redundant, so we
> don't need it, and shouldn't have it.
>
> Really I like the idea of "bin" to distinguish from source. As long as most
> people continue to download from www.openoffice.org, it is certainly not a
> problem. But, maybe a bit more discussion on this aspect.
s/bin/binaries/
/ooo/<VERSION>/source
/ooo/<VERSION>/binaries/<LANG>/
/ooo/<VERSION>/binaries/SDK/
Regards,
Dave
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
> take it or leave it. "
> -- Buddy Hackett
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 08/26/2012 02:26 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/25/2012 01:28 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 23/08/2012 22:06, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also IMHO no need to separate between the languages.
>>>>> Furthermore, when you have to check for a potential error, then you you
>>>>> just need to verify this in a single directory and not more.
>>>>> /stable/VERSION/<all and every install file>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The rest is OK, but removing even the languages subdirectories is
>>>> probably too much: we already have 20 languages and they could
>>>> theoretically reach 100+, so it would make sense to preserve the
>>>> individual subdirectories "en-US", "de", "it" and so on.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andrea.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 with Andrea on this one. We should leave the languages in separate
>>> directories. And, if folks do "browsing" on SourceForge instead of using
>>> our
>>> download logic, this will make things easier for that purpose as well.
>>>
>>>
>> +1
>>
>> It also makes it easier if someone wants to burn a CD for just a
>> single language.
>>
>
> OK, so our most recent opinion is the following:
>
> /stable/VERSION/<lang_id>/...
>
> Anyone else with different suggestions?
>
> Marcus
>
>
I think we were going to drop "stable" and just go with something like
/ooo/<VERSION>/source
/ooo/<VERSION>/bin/<LANG>/
/ooo/<VERSION>/bin/SDK/
...and there was some further discussion on the use of "bin".
At any rate, since we only distribute "stable", this is redundant, so we
don't need it, and shouldn't have it.
Really I like the idea of "bin" to distinguish from source. As long as most
people continue to download from www.openoffice.org, it is certainly not a
problem. But, maybe a bit more discussion on this aspect.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
take it or leave it. "
-- Buddy Hackett
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/26/2012 02:26 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/25/2012 01:28 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23/08/2012 22:06, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Also IMHO no need to separate between the languages.
>>>> Furthermore, when you have to check for a potential error, then you you
>>>> just need to verify this in a single directory and not more.
>>>> /stable/VERSION/<all and every install file>
>>>
>>>
>>> The rest is OK, but removing even the languages subdirectories is
>>> probably too much: we already have 20 languages and they could
>>> theoretically reach 100+, so it would make sense to preserve the
>>> individual subdirectories "en-US", "de", "it" and so on.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>>
>>
>> +1 with Andrea on this one. We should leave the languages in separate
>> directories. And, if folks do "browsing" on SourceForge instead of using our
>> download logic, this will make things easier for that purpose as well.
>>
>
> +1
>
> It also makes it easier if someone wants to burn a CD for just a
> single language.
OK, so our most recent opinion is the following:
/stable/VERSION/<lang_id>/...
Anyone else with different suggestions?
Marcus
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 08/25/2012 01:28 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>> On 23/08/2012 22:06, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>
>>> Also IMHO no need to separate between the languages.
>>> Furthermore, when you have to check for a potential error, then you you
>>> just need to verify this in a single directory and not more.
>>> /stable/VERSION/<all and every install file>
>>
>>
>> The rest is OK, but removing even the languages subdirectories is
>> probably too much: we already have 20 languages and they could
>> theoretically reach 100+, so it would make sense to preserve the
>> individual subdirectories "en-US", "de", "it" and so on.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>
>
> +1 with Andrea on this one. We should leave the languages in separate
> directories. And, if folks do "browsing" on SourceForge instead of using our
> download logic, this will make things easier for that purpose as well.
>
+1
It also makes it easier if someone wants to burn a CD for just a
single language.
-Rob
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
> take it or leave it. "
> -- Buddy Hackett
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 08/25/2012 01:28 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 23/08/2012 22:06, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Also IMHO no need to separate between the languages.
>> Furthermore, when you have to check for a potential error, then you you
>> just need to verify this in a single directory and not more.
>> /stable/VERSION/<all and every install file>
>
> The rest is OK, but removing even the languages subdirectories is
> probably too much: we already have 20 languages and they could
> theoretically reach 100+, so it would make sense to preserve the
> individual subdirectories "en-US", "de", "it" and so on.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
+1 with Andrea on this one. We should leave the languages in separate
directories. And, if folks do "browsing" on SourceForge instead of using
our download logic, this will make things easier for that purpose as well.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
take it or leave it. "
-- Buddy Hackett
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 23/08/2012 22:06, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Also IMHO no need to separate between the languages.
> Furthermore, when you have to check for a potential error, then you you
> just need to verify this in a single directory and not more.
> /stable/VERSION/<all and every install file>
The rest is OK, but removing even the languages subdirectories is
probably too much: we already have 20 languages and they could
theoretically reach 100+, so it would make sense to preserve the
individual subdirectories "en-US", "de", "it" and so on.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/23/2012 09:27 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
> release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
>
> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
>
> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're still
> being used
>
> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed structure,
> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to work on
> modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
The separation between stable/ and localized/ were done in former OOO
days to give the mirrors the freedom to pick their favorite builds. I f
they had no big bandwidth power, they had at least the chance to spread
the en-US builds to the world.
Nowadays, I don't see a reason to continue this - especially with
SourceForge.
So a plain flat structure is not only simple to remember but also really
manage-friendly from the point of view of the download scriping. As we
want to improve this further we should keep this in mind.
Also IMHO no need to separate between the languages.
Furthermore, when you have to check for a potential error, then you you
just need to verify this in a single directory and not more.
/stable/VERSION/<all and every install file>
Marcus