[Typo3-typo3org] TER 2.0 - updated concept!

Robert Lemke robert at typo3.org
Tue Apr 26 11:51:22 CEST 2005

Hi Michael,

Michael Scharkow wrote:

> 1. Why do we need getlist.php and gethash.php on the super mirrors,
> other than for logging. Simply serving extkey_0.2.0.md5 as static files
> should be more efficient and easier to mirror. Same with extensions.xml
> and mirrorlist.xml ;)

Okay, we can drop "gethash.php" but not "getlist.php" because we want to
create the list of mirrors dynamically for each client, sorted by GeoIP

> 2. Pathnames like /t/e/templavoila/0.3.0/templavoila_0.3.0.t3x : Why
> have the version information both in the path *and* the filename of the
> t3x. I see the use of /t/e/templavoila, but directories for versions
> with just one file in them are a waste of inodes...

Currently we have two files per version, templavoila_0.3.0.t3x and
templavoila_0.3.0.gif, so maybe you're right, we could put them both into
the /t/e/templavoila/ directory.

Any reasons against this?

> 3. I would update extensions.xml *after* an extension has been
> successfully uploaded and moved into the TER file structure...

Yes, that's an error, should be that way.

> 4. As Julle wrote: extensions should be pulled from super mirrors, not
> master rep.


> 5. Please let us separate documentation completely from TER, not
> creating doc-only additional extensions. Generally, doc-only extensions
> are a bad idea, because they a) extend nothing, b) do not profit from
> the EM infrastructure in any way, c) bloat TER. I agree that existing
> docs should be pulled out of an upload, but then it should be forwarded
> to docs.typo3.org. Instead of having a soft reference to a extkey_doc
> extension, we should have a reference to
> docs.typo3.org/extensions/extkey.[sxw|pdf|txt]

Personally, I don't agree. The only drawback is that we call it "extension",
"package" would be more adequate.

More opinions in favour / against documentation in the TER?


More information about the TYPO3-team-typo3org mailing list