Re: RE: phpweb / download-docs.php

Hojtsy gábor wrote: > > > >Yes, it would be good to get some opinions from the people > >administrating the servers what would be a good strategy for > >naming files to avoid those 87 redirects Sascha mentioned > >about. It makes sysadmin work just hell to remember what > >they are and why... > > It is not just about the sysadmin work. By naming the files > php_manual_$LANG.$FORMAT, people downloading the manual can > easily identify, what manual it is, what language it is in, > and what is the format. Now: > > manual.tar.gz > > wont help you identify what manual is this, or in what > language is it... Right, your suggestions about filenames are OK to me. > >Another thing is the directories containing on-line > >html-manuals... that could be split up to several subdirs. > >It's near reaching the limits what's reasonable with ext2. > >Or does it reside on reiserfs? > > Well, the downloadable packs are containing the same files. > So if it is a problem for ext2, it is urgently need to be > fixed, as then is it not unzipable in most users environments... Right (unfortunately :). Since splitting up only to the main-parts doesn't seem to be a solution for long (most files are from the funcref which is the most growing part), and the TOC for the Funcref doesn't provide also a great overview anymore: What do you think about inserting a new chapter-level into the function-feference, e.g. core-functions (array, filesystem, etc.), database-functions (msql, etc.), payment-functions (ccvs, cybercash, ), etc. OR, even it's not that far splitting: Common functions, Windows only-functions, *nix only functions > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Also we can decide if we want to produce "short" type of > manuals, as people do at Nexen. This way we can pack a small > compressed file with the most important functions and extensions, > and left off the less used ones. It would be popular IMHO. > > The biggest deal in this is who will decide, what are the > most used functions, and how can we make this short type > without any make errors (as there will be internal links > pointing to nowhere - into the part we left out). Right, and since I don't know the Nexen-structure: What's the relation between the No. of downloads? I could imagine that most people think "I want it all". > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greetz, Thomas