Release and RC file hosting

[raevol]

We were having a discussion in the 0.26.0 release thread about where to host our release and RC files. Let's continue that discussion here. Wheybags mentioned he had a server, Berlios was suggested, as well as our own hosting and then cloudfare. Please post your thoughts. I think in the end as long as the hosting is reliable and accessible, it doesn't matter where we put it, but we should have it in a place where packagers can all upload to, and where we can have lots of traffic downloading from it.

[lgromanowski]

Unfortunately BerliOS denied our request:

Due to resource limitations we cannot support more games or game frameworks.

The BerliOS Crew

[psi29a]

I think it would be more 'professional' if we use our own download page to allow users to download their binary of choice. This would make things consistent and to the point. Putting cloudflare in front would cache the binaries for us and save us from any potential DDoS in the future (due to reddit/slashdot/etc).

In the event that the site goes down, their is a page that comes up to tell users in a friendly way that the site is currently unavailble which is better and less 'panicky' than a browser error.

My two euro cents.

[scrawl]

Binaries could be uploaded to github: https://github.com/blog/1547-release-your-software

[scrawl]

And another thing, isn't manually uploading source tarballs completely unnecessary when they can be obtained from github? It's also error-prone:

15:46 <bwrsandman> scrawl: I suspect the github tarball will actually make my job easier. Every release the google code changes compression, archive root folder name, etc

[psi29a]

And another thing, isn't manually uploading source tarballs completely unnecessary when they can be obtained from github? It's also error-prone:

15:46 <bwrsandman> scrawl: I suspect the github tarball will actually make my job easier. Every release the google code changes compression, archive root folder name, etc

I've been complaining about this for years now.

Actually, we had an issue earlier with sub-modules not being included i source so I suggested using launchpad sources but now that we no longer use sub-modules it makes more sense to use github's source again.

[raevol]

My vote is for github.

[raevol]

And another thing, isn't manually uploading source tarballs completely unnecessary when they can be obtained from github? It's also error-prone:

15:46 <bwrsandman> scrawl: I suspect the github tarball will actually make my job easier. Every release the google code changes compression, archive root folder name, etc

I've been complaining about this for years now.

Actually, we had an issue earlier with sub-modules not being included i source so I suggested using launchpad sources but now that we no longer use sub-modules it makes more sense to use github's source again.

Maybe you guys should get yours from here? https://github.com/zinnschlag/openmw/releases

EDIT: Also, maybe our "Downloads" page should point here for sources? And then we don't re-host the sources anywhere?

[bwrsandman]

One thing I like about the googlecode page is that it displays the checksum for each file.
EDIT: Also, the download count.

[psi29a]

Maybe you guys should get yours from here? https://github.com/zinnschlag/openmw/releases

EDIT: Also, maybe our "Downloads" page should point here for sources? And then we don't re-host the sources anywhere?

We usually do, but this is about the source tall ball that gets uploaded to the download page. It is inconsistently made and looks unprofessional. The releases from your URL should be the ones used, at least until someone thinks it necessary to work with sub-modules again.