Cédric Corazza wrote: > A French site has already announced the availability of FF 2.0 final > release and gives download links (on its own site). > I guess they browsed on the releases/2.0 dir on the ftp. > Shouldn't the release dir be 'closed' before major releases (with > .htaccess ?) to avoid this kind of 'unpoliteness'?
There are several discussions on this, but .l10n is likely the least appropriate forum for this.
Trying .builds instead.
You want to send them a nice note to correct that, too, as they're disturbing our release process by doing that.
>> Shouldn't the release dir be 'closed' before major releases (with >> .htaccess ?) to avoid this kind of 'unpoliteness'?
We'd like to do this, but unfortunately, it's not that simple.
The files must be readable, so mirrors can get the bits to serve them on the big day.
Since we don't/can't control configuration of other people's web servers, .htaccess would be inconsistent across mirrors (if it worked at all).
Also, ftp.mozilla.org, accessed via FTP (as opposed to HTTP) would not pay attention to an .htaccess file.
The best way to deal with this is socially: ask people to wait, and let them know that they're degrading their user experience (because parts of the product may not be staged yet, which is a shame, especially if they complain about degraded user experience), and hindering our ability to remove deliverables which may be "bad," for whatever reason.
Most people would rather bathe in the pre-release squee, it seems. :-/
Later, preed -- J. Paul Reed Build/Release Engineer - The Mozilla Corporation smtp://pr...@mozilla.com irc://irc.mozilla.org/preed pots://650.903.0800/x256
J. Paul Reed wrote: > Axel Hecht wrote: > > Cédric Corazza wrote:
> >> Shouldn't the release dir be 'closed' before major releases (with > >> .htaccess ?) to avoid this kind of 'unpoliteness'?
> We'd like to do this, but unfortunately, it's not that simple.
> The files must be readable, so mirrors can get the bits to serve them on > the big day.
> Since we don't/can't control configuration of other people's web > servers, .htaccess would be inconsistent across mirrors (if it worked at > all).
> Also, ftp.mozilla.org, accessed via FTP (as opposed to HTTP) would not > pay attention to an .htaccess file.
> The best way to deal with this is socially: ask people to wait, and let > them know that they're degrading their user experience (because parts of > the product may not be staged yet, which is a shame, especially if they > complain about degraded user experience), and hindering our ability to > remove deliverables which may be "bad," for whatever reason.
You might want to get in touch with the Fedora Project and figure out what their solution to this problem is. As currently they have the release 6 directory locked out with access forbidden via web and FTP while the mirrors are mirroring for the release tuesday. Though I'm betting they are probably using rsync to do mirroring instead of HTTP or FTP.
This seems to happen with Firefox every release.. I had to spread news around the "office" today telling people to NOT download firefox 2.0 as it had not yet been released and I needed to test the primary web app in 2.0 more. (I doubt their will be any problems w/ the webapp as it was developed under 1.5, but I at least wanted to save the servers for your mirrors while you are preparing for the release).
