Mark Phippard wrote:
> Given that they are out of date and no longer maintained maybe we
> should start by removing them from our current list of binary packages
You mean removing the two "Tigris.org" links from the "Windows" section
of <http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html>? Yes, +1.
> and see if the traffic for them goes down? I doubt that is where the
> traffic is coming from but it is worth a try and I think it also makes
> Fellow SVN Devs: any objections to doing this?
Well, if I were looking for a Windows package to download I'd be very
likely to use that link, I think, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is
where a lot of the traffic is coming from.
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010, Jack Repenning wrote:
> > It turns out that there are still quite a few folks downloading the
> rather stale-ish binary packages still stored on Tigris (Subversion
> installers and language bindings). We see around 40,000 downloads of
> these files per week, even though the newest is version 1.6.6. This is
> probably mostly confusion. I wonder if we shouldn't do something to
> un-confuse all these people?
> > What I'd propose would be:
> > 1. move these packages to some other directory, that a bit more
> clearly shows their status (such as the existing "Windows Archive"
> > 2. Put something (banner note, or URL-reference, something like
> that) into the folder to direct lost wanderers to packages.html or
> > Sound reasonable? Additional thoughts? I'm happy to do the work.
> > Background:
> > There are, of course, other places with newer packages available. I
> don't really know why people keep downloading the new ones (and
> non-trivial numbers are still downloading Really Old Ones, even back
> into "releases" 0.X.X). A few of these downloads are probably people
> who know what they're doing -- testing against old versions, for
> example, to isolate when a problem first arose. But 40K/week? I don't
> think so!
> > Mark Phippard and DJ Heap both suspect these are, fundamentally,
> some sort of confusion: people think Tigris is "the official source,"
> or something like that. I had thought there might be some deeper
> reason, such as preferring the packaging format, but they talked me
> out of that.
Received on 2010-06-25 13:28:07 CEST