From: Ethan M. <merritt@u.washington.edu> - 2009-09-22 04:32:04
|
On Monday 21 September 2009, Philipp K. Janert wrote: > > Clark - thanks for the write-up. This is great. > I think others on the mailing list and the dev > team will also appreciate to have this review. > (I'll also put it on sourceforge as a Readme > file for the web setup.) Sounds reasonable. > Lastly, I am not sure that we need the distinct > staging/production environments. We seem to > be updating the website very rarely. Additionally, > these days everybody has access to a webserver > of their own which can be used for staging, testing, > development. (This is one of the ways in which > today's situation is very different from the way > things were ten years ago.) > > Given that today there is SourceForge, the need > to host community projects on individual's accounts > seems less pressing. As I said before, it would make > sense to me to have gnuplot.sourceforge.net be the > "canonical" site (and have gnuplot.info point to it), > and to make Clark's site at VT a clearly designated > mirror. > > Votes? Opinions? Discussion? The only times I can recall it being an issue is during the first 48 hours or so after a release. Given that this happens only once or twice a year, it just doesn't seem like that big a deal. When putting out a release, I've been working off a check-list: update versioning, build tarballs, put the files on SourceForge, send notification to the mailing list, etc. If that last step were delayed by 48 hours, chances are no one would notice or complain about the propagation delay. I'm off for a bit of vacation these next two weeks. On return, I'll check up to see how the discussion went. Ethan |