You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> on 2010/11/18 16:11:57 UTC
Release distribution contents.
It would be good to have a definitive position on this. The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
Ralph
On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>
>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>
>> That's deliberate.
>>
>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>> download the source archive.
>>
>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>> Maven distribution only
>
>
> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>
> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>
> Phil
>>
>>> So +1.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>
>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>
>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>
>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>
>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>
>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>
>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Ralph Goers
<ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Thanks, but I'm still not sure I'll change anything in VFS. I prefer having both the source and binary archives built in the same project. With the change to the Apache pom the source archive is built in the parent and the binary is built in the dist project.
That's still a better approach as it keeps more of the build standard
with other Apache projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Thanks, but I'm still not sure I'll change anything in VFS. I prefer having both the source and binary archives built in the same project. With the change to the Apache pom the source archive is built in the parent and the binary is built in the dist project. As we also discussed, it may be possible to get the assembly plugin to work correctly in Maven 3. If that happens I will gladly remove the dist project and move building the binary distribution to the parent project and let the source distribution be constructed as you describe here.
The real topic of this thread though, is what to include in the binary distribution archive. I'm planning on including the source and javadoc jar in VFS since it doesn't appear the community wants to set guidelines for all of commons.
Ralph
On Nov 23, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> Ralph,
> We made the change to easily allow projects to select the tar.gz & zip
> source distribution now and it's being staged for a vote today:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1038139
>
> Once this is released and you update to the new Apache pom, you can
> select the tar.gz assembly simply by adding this property:
> <sourceReleaseAssemblyDescriptor>source-release-zip-tar</sourceReleaseAssemblyDescriptor>
>
> Then you can get rid of the duplicated assembly.xml setup we added at
> ApacheCon and the associated assembly plugin config.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/10 10:27 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/11/2010 15:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
>>>
>>> The definitive ASF position is:
>>> - the ASF releases source code
>>> - the src release should contain everything needed to build
>>> - binary releases are optional
>>> - binary releases, if provided, should be derivable from the src release
>>
>> +1 - and the actual release is what we put on dist/.
>> Traditionally we have provided both source and binary distributions there,
>> archived as gzipped tars and zip files.
>>
>> We have never had hard rules on what is required in Commons releases other
>> than the above (and NOTICE, LICENSE and headers stuff) and I am -1 on adding
>> them now. I don't even think we should *require* maven artifacts; though
>> RMs are encouraged to publish them or ask others to help. Again, the actual
>> release is the zips and tarballs available on the download pages. And in
>> fact the source is what is actually being released - the binaries are a
>> convenience for users.
>>>
>>> (I know - the above list misses out a bunch of stuff)
>>>
>>>> The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution
>>>> zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source
>>>> distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an
>>>> IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I
>>>> need to change that before I do it.
>>>
>>> Projects are free to impose additional restrictions on themselves if
>>> they wish.
>>>
>>> From an ASF perspective you are fine.
>>>
>>> From a Commons perspective, ENOCLUE. In your shoes, and in the absence
>>> of a documented Commons policy on exactly what should and should not be
>>> in a binary distribution, I'd go with whatever you think is best and if
>>> folks don't like it they are free to provide patches for the next release.
>>
>> It is up to the RM what additional jars to put into the binary release.
>> Obviously, the RM should listen to the community. Since it is dead easy to
>> include javadoc and sources jars in maven-generated releases, and some users
>> seem to like them, I personally include them for the releases that I cut.
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not
>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's deliberate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>>>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>>>>> download the source archive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>>>>> Maven distribution only
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason
>>>>> people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier
>>>>> for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So +1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tag:
>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
Ralph,
We made the change to easily allow projects to select the tar.gz & zip
source distribution now and it's being staged for a vote today:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1038139
Once this is released and you update to the new Apache pom, you can
select the tar.gz assembly simply by adding this property:
<sourceReleaseAssemblyDescriptor>source-release-zip-tar</sourceReleaseAssemblyDescriptor>
Then you can get rid of the duplicated assembly.xml setup we added at
ApacheCon and the associated assembly plugin config.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/10 10:27 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On 18/11/2010 15:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
>>
>> The definitive ASF position is:
>> - the ASF releases source code
>> - the src release should contain everything needed to build
>> - binary releases are optional
>> - binary releases, if provided, should be derivable from the src release
>
> +1 - and the actual release is what we put on dist/.
> Traditionally we have provided both source and binary distributions there,
> archived as gzipped tars and zip files.
>
> We have never had hard rules on what is required in Commons releases other
> than the above (and NOTICE, LICENSE and headers stuff) and I am -1 on adding
> them now. I don't even think we should *require* maven artifacts; though
> RMs are encouraged to publish them or ask others to help. Again, the actual
> release is the zips and tarballs available on the download pages. And in
> fact the source is what is actually being released - the binaries are a
> convenience for users.
>>
>> (I know - the above list misses out a bunch of stuff)
>>
>>> The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution
>>> zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source
>>> distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an
>>> IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I
>>> need to change that before I do it.
>>
>> Projects are free to impose additional restrictions on themselves if
>> they wish.
>>
>> From an ASF perspective you are fine.
>>
>> From a Commons perspective, ENOCLUE. In your shoes, and in the absence
>> of a documented Commons policy on exactly what should and should not be
>> in a binary distribution, I'd go with whatever you think is best and if
>> folks don't like it they are free to provide patches for the next release.
>
> It is up to the RM what additional jars to put into the binary release.
> Obviously, the RM should listen to the community. Since it is dead easy to
> include javadoc and sources jars in maven-generated releases, and some users
> seem to like them, I personally include them for the releases that I cut.
>
> Phil
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not
>>>>>> contain
>>>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's deliberate.
>>>>>
>>>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>>>> download the source archive.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>>>> Maven distribution only
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason
>>>> people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier
>>>> for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>>>
>>>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>> So +1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tag:
>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 11/18/10 10:27 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 18/11/2010 15:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
>
> The definitive ASF position is:
> - the ASF releases source code
> - the src release should contain everything needed to build
> - binary releases are optional
> - binary releases, if provided, should be derivable from the src release
+1 - and the actual release is what we put on dist/.
Traditionally we have provided both source and binary distributions
there, archived as gzipped tars and zip files.
We have never had hard rules on what is required in Commons releases
other than the above (and NOTICE, LICENSE and headers stuff) and I
am -1 on adding them now. I don't even think we should *require*
maven artifacts; though RMs are encouraged to publish them or ask
others to help. Again, the actual release is the zips and tarballs
available on the download pages. And in fact the source is what is
actually being released - the binaries are a convenience for users.
>
> (I know - the above list misses out a bunch of stuff)
>
>> The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
>
> Projects are free to impose additional restrictions on themselves if
> they wish.
>
> From an ASF perspective you are fine.
>
> From a Commons perspective, ENOCLUE. In your shoes, and in the absence
> of a documented Commons policy on exactly what should and should not be
> in a binary distribution, I'd go with whatever you think is best and if
> folks don't like it they are free to provide patches for the next release.
It is up to the RM what additional jars to put into the binary
release. Obviously, the RM should listen to the community. Since
it is dead easy to include javadoc and sources jars in
maven-generated releases, and some users seem to like them, I
personally include them for the releases that I cut.
Phil
>
> Mark
>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>
>>>> That's deliberate.
>>>>
>>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>>> download the source archive.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>>> Maven distribution only
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>>
>>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>> So +1.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 18/11/2010 15:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
The definitive ASF position is:
- the ASF releases source code
- the src release should contain everything needed to build
- binary releases are optional
- binary releases, if provided, should be derivable from the src release
(I know - the above list misses out a bunch of stuff)
> The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
Projects are free to impose additional restrictions on themselves if
they wish.
>From an ASF perspective you are fine.
>From a Commons perspective, ENOCLUE. In your shoes, and in the absence
of a documented Commons policy on exactly what should and should not be
in a binary distribution, I'd go with whatever you think is best and if
folks don't like it they are free to provide patches for the next release.
Mark
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>
>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>
>>> That's deliberate.
>>>
>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>> download the source archive.
>>>
>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>> Maven distribution only
>>
>>
>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>
>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>>> So +1.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>
>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>
>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>
>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
RE: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 07:12
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Release distribution contents.
>
> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
IMO, it would be even good-er to have a [commons]-wide position on this.
G
The VFS build includes
> the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a
> separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while
> the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another
> release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do
> it.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> > On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
> >> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> wrote:
> >>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
> >>>
> >>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
> >>> the source and Javadocs jar.
> >>
> >> That's deliberate.
> >>
> >> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
> >> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
> >> download the source archive.
> >>
> >> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
> >> Maven distribution only
> >
> >
> > Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people
> started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users
> using IDEs that make use of them.
> >
> > Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
> >
> > Phil
> >>
> >>> So +1.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>> Oliver
> >>>
> >>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
> >>>>
> >>>> Changes since RC1 are:
> >>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
> >>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
> >>>>
> >>>> [ ] +1 release it
> >>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> >>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
> >>>>
> >>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
> >>>>
> >>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
> >>>>
> >>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
> >>>>
> >>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> I haven't started a vote yet on VFS. I thought it would be nice to have a common policy on how to do this for all commons releases. I'd prefer to leave the javadoc and source jars in the binary distribution so I'm not going to change that unless there is a common policy that says otherwise.
>
Sorry, the original email that I responded to had stuff in there about
the NET release, which I believe is what started this whole mess.
Sorry for the noise. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Nov 18, 2010, at 8:21 AM, James Carman wrote:
> A release can't be vetoed anyway. So, you've got one -1 (if I am
> counting correctly). Go ahead and release it if you've got enough
> other folks behind it (minimum of three +1s)
I haven't started a vote yet on VFS. I thought it would be nice to have a common policy on how to do this for all commons releases. I'd prefer to leave the javadoc and source jars in the binary distribution so I'm not going to change that unless there is a common policy that says otherwise.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Jörg Schaible
<jo...@scalaris.com> wrote:
>
> I don't count any -1, even Oliver voted +1.
>
There was a -1 from Daniel Savarese, right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@scalaris.com>.
James Carman wrote:
> A release can't be vetoed anyway. So, you've got one -1 (if I am
> counting correctly).
I don't count any -1, even Oliver voted +1.
> Go ahead and release it if you've got enough
> other folks behind it (minimum of three +1s)
Personally I don't care if these two jars are part of the binary distro, but
I'd prefer a commons solution used by our components.
Nevertheless, for me it's the same as for Phil: No time to test it yet.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
A release can't be vetoed anyway. So, you've got one -1 (if I am
counting correctly). Go ahead and release it if you've got enough
other folks behind it (minimum of three +1s)
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Niall Pemberton
<ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> It would be good to have a definitive position on this. The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
>>
>
> Theres no right/wrong answer here and either way the release is good
> to go. IMO though these jars are useful to people who don't want to
> build from source but do want to see the source/javadocs int their
> IDE. The reason for taking them out AIUI it was *bloat* - but that
> seems a weak reason to me. I doubt anyone will complain about a few
> extra bytes in the binary distro - but some people might be
> disappointed to not find those jars. AFAIK we have set up all the
> other m2 builds in commons to include them.
>
> Up to you, but if it was me I would revert the change that dropped
> them from the binary distro.
>
> Niall
>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>
>>>> That's deliberate.
>>>>
>>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>>> download the source archive.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>>> Maven distribution only
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>>
>>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>> So +1.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18 November 2010 16:09, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> It would be good to have a definitive position on this. The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
>>
>
> Theres no right/wrong answer here and either way the release is good
> to go. IMO though these jars are useful to people who don't want to
> build from source but do want to see the source/javadocs int their
> IDE. The reason for taking them out AIUI it was *bloat* - but that
> seems a weak reason to me. I doubt anyone will complain about a few
> extra bytes in the binary distro - but some people might be
The reason I removed the source and javadoc jars from NET was because
of a complaint.
BTW, I can see that it might be useful to include the source jar in
the binary for IDEs to use.
But given that the Javadoc is already included, is there any need to
include it again as part of a jar?
Generally the source jar is the smallest, so that might satisfy
everyone - i.e. binary archive would contain:
- N&L etc
- binary jar
- source jar
- javadoc (loose)
> disappointed to not find those jars. AFAIK we have set up all the
> other m2 builds in commons to include them.
>
> Up to you, but if it was me I would revert the change that dropped
> them from the binary distro.
>
> Niall
>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>
>>>> That's deliberate.
>>>>
>>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>>> download the source archive.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>>> Maven distribution only
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>>
>>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>> So +1.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> It would be good to have a definitive position on this. The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
>
Theres no right/wrong answer here and either way the release is good
to go. IMO though these jars are useful to people who don't want to
build from source but do want to see the source/javadocs int their
IDE. The reason for taking them out AIUI it was *bloat* - but that
seems a weak reason to me. I doubt anyone will complain about a few
extra bytes in the binary distro - but some people might be
disappointed to not find those jars. AFAIK we have set up all the
other m2 builds in commons to include them.
Up to you, but if it was me I would revert the change that dropped
them from the binary distro.
Niall
> Ralph
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>
>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>
>>> That's deliberate.
>>>
>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>> download the source archive.
>>>
>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>> Maven distribution only
>>
>>
>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>
>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>>> So +1.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>
>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>
>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>
>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org