X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C644D1D867; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:30:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23047-03; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:30:13 -0400 (AST) Received: from smtp-send.myrealbox.com (smtp-send.myrealbox.com [192.108.102.143]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EDEAD1D884; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:30:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from myrealbox.com glaesema@smtp-send.myrealbox.com [61.115.206.98] by smtp-send.myrealbox.com with NetMail SMTP Agent $Revision: 3.44 $ on Novell NetWare; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:30:14 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:30:06 +0900 Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: neilc@samurai.com, scrappy@postgresql.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org To: From: Michael Glaesemann In-Reply-To: <20031118081340.23720.qmail@osiris.gamecrashnet.de> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/311 X-Sequence-Number: 2958 On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 05:13 PM, Andreas Grabm=FCller wrote: > ----- Original-Nachricht ----- > Von: "Marc G. Fournier" > An: Neil Conway > CC: pgsql-www@postgresql.org, PostgreSQL Development=20 > > Datum: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 05:06 AM > Betreff: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Release cycle length > >> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Neil Conway wrote: >> >>> That said, I'm not really sure how we can make better use of the beta >>> period. One obvious improvement would be making the beta=20 >>> announcements >>> more visible: the obscurity of the beta process on www.postgresql.org >>> for 7.4 was pretty ridiculous. Does anyone else have a suggestion on >>> what we can do to produce a more reliable .0 release in less time? >> >> Agreed ... here's a thought ... >> >> take the download page and break it into two pages: >> >> page 1: broken down into "dev" vs "stable" versions, including the=20 >> date of >> release ... >> >> page 2: when you click on the version you want to download, it brings=20 >> you >> to a subpage that is what the main page currently is (with all the=20 >> flags >> and such) but instead of just sending ppl to the ftp site itself,=20 >> actually >> have the link go to the directory that contains that version on the=20 >> mirror >> site ... >> >> that first page of the download could contain descriptoins of the=20 >> variosu >> releases, and state of releases? >> >> ---------------------------(end of=20 >> broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > We could also use some download page similar to the one on=20 > httpd.apache.org - first you select a mirror (and one near you has=20 > been preselected) and under it you get a list of possible downloads...=20 > might be easier for the users than browsing through FTP... From a users' standpoint, do you think the users are looking for a=20 mirror or for software? Maybe put the download first, then a selection=20 of mirrors. I haven't done a lot of downloading, so my perspective=20 might be a little off. And advantage of the mirror > download order=20 would be if people are downloading more than one item at a time. Then=20 they wouldn't have to go back to choose another download. However, once=20 they choose the mirror (and commence the download) a page could come up=20 offering the option to download more from this mirror. Just some thoughts. Michael