Alpha images on ftp site (was Re: (fwd) [Test-Runner Results]Squeak3.6beta latest update: #5411)

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Thu Sep 11 22:43:32 UTC 2003


current_stable + current_development symlinks to dirs solves the problem
I have, and probably is the right thing to do for download links, also.
Keeping the update stream version names and ftp path names consistent
seems like the ordered thing to do, even if its not needed. 

As long as the release files contain the update number, it doesn't seem
to me like any ambiguity can come up about which is the latest.

Daniel

Ingo Hohmann <uysl0l402 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
> Ian Piumarta wrote:
> <...>
> > My own feeling is that there are only two approaches which are not
> > confusing for people (which I guess really means "for me"):
> > 
> >   - If you have each release in seperate subdir "X.Y.Z/...zip" then
> >     create a symbolic link to the release dir called "current".
> >     Following the link dumps you in a directory where the version
> >     numbers are explicit in the filenames.
> > 
> >       Foo-X.Y.Zgamma/foo-x.y.z-gamma.zip
> >       Foo-gamma-current -> Foo-X.Y.Zgamma
> > 
> >   - If you have multiple releases in the same [sub]dir then the only
> >     safe thing to do is to create a file called something like
> > 
> >       LATEST_GAMMA_IS_X.Y.Z
> > 
> >     (which, if you like, could be a symlink to the archive itself).
> > 
> > The rationale behind all of the above is that one should never, ever
> > become confused as to which version number in the explicitly-numbered
> > archives corresponds to the "current" release.  Making "opaque" archives
> > (or symlinks) that just say "current.zip" destroys exactly this kind of
> > essential information.
> <..>
> 
> I understand your rationale, yet the question remains: to whom will it 
> be confusing? And in what way?
> 
> As much as I hate downloading files called "current.tgz" (current of 
> what? Which version is it really?) Having too much info in the filename 
> isn't any better, and will lead to things like links on the squeak 
> download page: "download the latest Squeak3.6alpha" which points to the 
> latest *alpha*, as advertised, but not to the latest *version*, as 
> squeak already progressed to 3.6gamma. (That's why my first proposal 
> voted for the current.tgz scheme).
> 
> Maybe a better thought out scheme would include different directories 
> for different versions, and links
> 	"current_stable" and
> 	"current_development"
> to the respective directories. If the filenaming convention ensures that 
> files are sorted in order of release, this should work. Though a
> 	LATEST_STABLE_IS_... and
> 	LATEST_DEVELOPMENT_IS... wouldn't hurt, either.
> 
> 
> Just to add a few more cents,
> 
> Ingo



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list