[wp-hackers] WordPress 3.0.1 package problem?

[Lynne Pope]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Rich Pedley <elfin at elfden.co.uk> wrote:

> On 30/08/2010 12:54, Mike Little wrote:
>
>> On 30 August 2010 12:48, Rich Pedley<elfin at elfden.co.uk>  wrote:
>>
>>  On 30/08/2010 12:40, Mike Little wrote:
>>>
>>>   Actually, I just spotted you said wordpress-mu 3.01, there is no
>>>>>
>>>> WordPress
>>>> MU 3.0.1 it's all WordPress now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Then why is there a 3.0&  3.0.1 listed in the MU Releases section?
>>>
>>> That page is confusing though, would it be better to split into 3 now?
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>>
>> The mu releases did not used to be on that page at all. I suspect it's
>> something to do with the reworking of the .org site. So my guess would be
>> that an automated script that generates the links is probably confused by
>> having mu releases listed on the same page (and now pointing at the same
>> svn
>> tree).
>>
>>
> actually thinking about it, having those there is useful for those
> upgrading from MU.
>
>  I still think the page needs splitting into 3 now though.



Aha - now I see what's happened! I am so used to loading that page,
scrolling to the bottom, glancing at the version number and grabbing that +
the md5checksum that I never even noticed the page now has MU releases on it
as well. Then, to add to the confusion, there are releases listed there for
MU 3.0 and 3.0.1 zips.

I agree that those three should be split. My mistake came from just
habitually using that page the same way every time. Since MU 3.0.x is the
same as WordPress 3.0.x now I just went, "huh?" and ignored the MU in the
file name. I don't think it's illogical to expect the MU 3.0.x releases to
be the same files as the WP 3.0.x releases. However, even so, if a zip file
is provided for the release and there's a link for a tar.gz and md5checksum
then the link shouldn't be going to a "Release not found." page.

I'd prefer the page split, with a dedicated MU release archive for
historical reasons that ends with the last separate release of MU. Keeping
RC's and betas separate also makes sense, while making it less likely for
users to accidentally download them.

Of course, I am biased - I don't want to have to scroll and engage eyes and
brain just to quickly grab a distro ;)

Lynne