Posts: 31,445
Joined: Jan 2011
Just tell us the issue here in the forums.
Posts: 31,445
Joined: Jan 2011
This?
https://github.com/xbmc/xbmc/issues/7942
I'm honestly not sure why we do that either. If the desire is to clean up the clutter, we should stop throwing betas and RCs in the same folder as releases. However, there might be other reasons for this. Maybe the "old" folder is scanned less for mirrors or something, to help out with mirror traffic?
Posts: 2,127
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
60
Razze
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 2,127
On a side note, why is the isses menu point even activated on github? I'm guessing it wasn't possible before, but now you can set it to deactivated in the repo settings.
Posts: 17,859
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
371
2015-09-01, 17:25
(This post was last modified: 2015-09-01, 17:26 by Martijn.)
Yes, those as well as milestones.
Perhaps they "fixed" it by now. I added the request years ago and it was on their to do list
Posts: 2,127
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
60
Razze
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 2,127
Milestones also seem okay
Posts: 31,445
Joined: Jan 2011
Our server guys will see this thread and respond when they have a moment :)
Posts: 5,174
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation:
97
Kib
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 5,174
2015-09-04, 11:51
(This post was last modified: 2015-09-04, 11:59 by Kib.)
Not to sound unfriendly, but I'm not sure why we should need to change the way we have always managed our mirrors because you aren't able to script your way about a file being in possibly two different locations.
Why not simply do a head request and check if the file exists if you don't want to update it manually ?
Manual updating is what we do ourselves for our download page.
The reasons why we do not keep all old RC and beta releases is simply because of size considerations for our mirrors.
We only provide older stables and want to make it clear for users browsing our mirrors which is the current stable. (Everything else gets moved to old.)
Posts: 31,445
Joined: Jan 2011
This is actually a fairly recent change, within the last year I think. Normally, all releases have been in the same folder and were not moved into an "old" folder. I understand the logic, but I doubt that using an old folder is actually doing anything at all. Users who don't understand that a higher version number is the latest release are not going to care what folder the release is in.
Posts: 6,252
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
115
da-anda
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 6,252
well, we could also go the other way arround have have a "current" folder and/or symlink that always points to the latest release. Not that I actually care.
Posts: 7,638
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation:
285
It is fine as is. We want users to use the current version, so it should be obvious which one that is.
Its is trivial to look into the old dir if what you are looking for is not there from a scripting POV.
Posts: 31,445
Joined: Jan 2011
(2015-09-04, 13:07)da-anda Wrote: well, we could also go the other way arround have have a "current" folder and/or symlink that always points to the latest release. Not that I actually care.
I don't have strong feelings about it, either, but a "current" symlink would be awesome. We used to do this years and years ago for Apple TV 1 installs (running OS X) when it downloaded the OS X build from the mirrors. It could really come in handy for a few situations, including OP's situation, and the occasional Android or iOS use case, where some users have to type in (or cut-and-paste) URLs for installation.