X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:00:39 -0400
Message-Id: <201508111900.t7BJ0dSE020726@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <55CA3FF1.2050608@gmx.de> (djgpp@delorie.com)
Subject: Re: Keep 2.05 archives separate?
References: <2af8c3c0-bc09-4de9-abe4-cfd6c947425a AT googlegroups DOT com> <mpob96$vvo$1 AT usenet DOT news DOT interia DOT pl> <422e9328-994e-4485-95d3-2f0911cc6f74 AT googlegroups DOT com> <55CA3FF1 DOT 2050608 AT gmx DOT de>
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> Andris has already collected all 2.05 ports uploaded lately.  It is only necessary
> to remove the equivalent 2.04 ports from the /beta tree.  If those ports should
> be definitively deleted or only moved to some obsolete directory must be decided
> by DJ.

What's supposed to happen is that files move from alpha to beta to
current to deleted as releases are released.  2.04 never made it to
current, which is messing up the system, but we should stick with the
system if we can.

> What remains in the /beta directory after having deleted the
> equivalent 2.04 ports should be moved to the /current directory.
> After that the /beta directory should be empty and the update to
> DJGPP 2.05 finished.

Yup, with /deleted having whatever was "deleted".

> If the old djdev203 and djdev204 should be retained also in the
> /current/v2 directory must be decided.

They move to /deleted with all the other old releases.  Perhaps
"deleted" is a misnomer but that's what we've always called it.

> In the end the latest version is good enough and there is no reason
> to keep the rest.

Again, the rest get moved to /deleted.