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