Improving the Downloads page

Anything related to PR, release planning and any other non-technical idea how to move the project forward should be discussed here.
User avatar
Thunderforge
Posts: 489
Joined: 06 Jun 2017, 05:57
Github profile: https://github.com/Thunderforge

Improving the Downloads page

Post by Thunderforge » 04 Aug 2018, 17:03

I've done some reorganizing to the Downloads page so that it puts the most common downloads (release builds, and especially Windows) up top and the less common ones further down. I have a couple of questions:
  • Does GitLab have a page with releases? I kept a link to the GitHub page because I couldn't find an equivalent on GitLab.
  • Is the Gentoo Linux page maintained? It still lists 0.43 as the latest
  • When I try to go to the OpenSUSE page, I get a search engine with no preloaded results. Does that mean that it's a broken link?
  • It looks like both links for Fedora get redirected to the same page. Should they be going somewhere else, or should they just be condensed into one?
  • The ArchLinux AUR page looks woefully out of date and has the "bleeding edge" version at sometime around 0.41. I'm guessing this isn't being maintained any more?
Also, are there any other improvements to the Downloads page that should be made?

User avatar
kuyondo
Posts: 221
Joined: 29 Mar 2016, 17:45

Re: Improving the Downloads page

Post by kuyondo » 04 Aug 2018, 19:04

Looks neat and nice Thunderforge!

Loriel
Posts: 141
Joined: 28 May 2015, 00:44

Re: Improving the Downloads page

Post by Loriel » 04 Aug 2018, 19:12

Possibly not quite ready yet, but I would like to see the CSManual link at the bottom point to the RTD version instead.

Loriel

User avatar
Starsheep
Posts: 54
Joined: 06 Jun 2018, 16:09

Re: Improving the Downloads page

Post by Starsheep » 04 Aug 2018, 19:34

tiny suggestion:

if you replace the link to the "site files repository" with

Code: Select all

https://downloads.openmw.org/windows/?C=M;O=D
it's going to show the last modified files on top, hence the most recent versions first.

An even better thing would be to have two direct links on the download page, one for the 32 bits and one for the 64 bits version, that point to the latest release.

The idea being having a 1 click download button without having to scroll a directory full of releases from 5 years ago.

User avatar
Capostrophic
Posts: 431
Joined: 22 Feb 2016, 20:32

Re: Improving the Downloads page

Post by Capostrophic » 04 Aug 2018, 19:48

You might also want to add a link to Ubuntu dailies PPA.

Condense Fedora links into one.

OpenSUSE link is not dead. Click on OpenSUSE logo in the center.
shitty lingua anglica grammar ftw

Nicky726
Posts: 2
Joined: 04 Aug 2018, 21:04

Re: Improving the Downloads page

Post by Nicky726 » 04 Aug 2018, 21:57

Thunderforge wrote:
04 Aug 2018, 17:03
The ArchLinux AUR page looks woefully out of date and has the "bleeding edge" version at sometime around 0.41. I'm guessing this isn't being maintained any more?
The versions of git packages in AUR are updated on build time. Currently it successfully builds: openmw-git 0.43.0.1190.g452a70604-1 which seems to match the head of your github sources.

User avatar
Thunderforge
Posts: 489
Joined: 06 Jun 2017, 05:57
Github profile: https://github.com/Thunderforge

Re: Improving the Downloads page

Post by Thunderforge » 05 Aug 2018, 16:39

Starsheep wrote:
04 Aug 2018, 19:34
tiny suggestion:

if you replace the link to the "site files repository" with

Code: Select all

https://downloads.openmw.org/windows/?C=M;O=D
it's going to show the last modified files on top, hence the most recent versions first.
Done.
Starsheep wrote:
04 Aug 2018, 19:34
An even better thing would be to have two direct links on the download page, one for the 32 bits and one for the 64 bits version, that point to the latest release.

The idea being having a 1 click download button without having to scroll a directory full of releases from 5 years ago.
I agree, this would be ideal. I like the way that OpenRA does their downloads page with one click buttons for the latest stable and nightly releases. If OpenMW were to do the same, we'd have to add updating those links to our release process. Who decides that process?
Capostrophic wrote:
04 Aug 2018, 19:48
You might also want to add a link to Ubuntu dailies PPA.
These are the same as the nightly releases, right? If so, I'll add it to that section.
Capostrophic wrote:
04 Aug 2018, 19:48
Condense Fedora links into one.
Done.
Capostrophic wrote:
04 Aug 2018, 19:48
OpenSUSE link is not dead. Click on OpenSUSE logo in the center.
Huh, didn't realize that. I'll keep it up then.
Nicky726 wrote:
04 Aug 2018, 21:57
The versions of git packages in AUR are updated on build time. Currently it successfully builds: openmw-git 0.43.0.1190.g452a70604-1 which seems to match the head of your github sources.
Still, version 0.44 is the most recent one, not 0.43. Did this not get updated when we moved to GitLab?

User avatar
Starsheep
Posts: 54
Joined: 06 Jun 2018, 16:09

Re: Improving the Downloads page

Post by Starsheep » 05 Aug 2018, 18:33

awesome, thanks for doing the summer clean up :D

Nicky726
Posts: 2
Joined: 04 Aug 2018, 21:04

Re: Improving the Downloads page

Post by Nicky726 » 05 Aug 2018, 20:05

Thunderforge wrote:
05 Aug 2018, 16:39
Still, version 0.44 is the most recent one, not 0.43. Did this not get updated when we moved to GitLab?
The version info is produced by git describe, it seems that your sources still return the old version number. The package downloads the sources from GitHub, that is still valid, right?

User avatar
Thunderforge
Posts: 489
Joined: 06 Jun 2017, 05:57
Github profile: https://github.com/Thunderforge

Re: Improving the Downloads page

Post by Thunderforge » 05 Aug 2018, 23:18

Nicky726 wrote:
05 Aug 2018, 20:05
Thunderforge wrote:
05 Aug 2018, 16:39
Still, version 0.44 is the most recent one, not 0.43. Did this not get updated when we moved to GitLab?
The version info is produced by git describe, it seems that your sources still return the old version number. The package downloads the sources from GitHub, that is still valid, right?
Looks like the link is behaving properly, it's the Git repo that's not. Discussion about that is being covered here.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests