You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cordova.apache.org by Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> on 2013/09/03 18:36:09 UTC
When to do "Official Apache Releases"
It's been mentioned before, but with CLI, there's not a lot of utility in
doing official apache releases (uploading signed zips to dist.apache.org).
I don't think we should stop doing these entirely, but should we still do
these for each Cadence Release? An alternative would be to do them only
once / twice a year.
Any thoughts on why / why not?
Andrew
RE: When to do "Official Apache Releases"
Posted by "Smith, Peter" <pe...@fast.au.fujitsu.com>.
+1. We have same scenario described by Marcel below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcel Kinard [mailto:cmarcelk@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 September 2013 11:21 PM
To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Subject: Re: When to do "Official Apache Releases"
+1 to still do these for each cadence release.
I'm in a somewhat unique situation where Cordova gets bundled as a
downstream distribution into a vendor product. The vendor product uses
the Cordova native platforms and core plugins that get embedded in the
product, the product doesn't fetch any code from git or npm. And the
product itself doesn't get installed in an npm-like way. There isn't
dynamic updates or dependency fetching. As we bundle those downstream
distributions, I'm very used to using the official apache release
tarballs.
I'm fine with it being just the native platforms and docs. We don't
embed the Cordova docs in the product, we just link out to
cordova.apache.org/docs.
And it would feel weird for an Apache project to not publish source
releases.
I nobody else wants to invest the time to publish an official apache
release to dist.apache.org, then I can own that.
-- Marcel
On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> It's been mentioned before, but with CLI, there's not a lot of utility
> in doing official apache releases (uploading signed zips to
dist.apache.org).
>
> I don't think we should stop doing these entirely, but should we still
> do these for each Cadence Release? An alternative would be to do them
> only once / twice a year.
>
> Any thoughts on why / why not?
>
> Andrew
Re: When to do "Official Apache Releases"
Posted by Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>.
Sounds like we should still do them :)
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Ken Wallis <kw...@blackberry.com> wrote:
> +1 to Marcel's thoughts. His situation is definitely not unique. ;)
>
> At minimum I think it would be useful to try and solicit feedback on this
> from a wider audience than the dev list. I imagine there are more than just
> the watchers on this DL that might be bundling official packages in
> downstream distributions.
> --
>
> Ken Wallis
> Senior Product Manager – WebWorks
> BlackBerry
> 650-620-2404
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Marcel Kinard [cmarcelk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:20 AM
> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> Subject: Re: When to do "Official Apache Releases"
>
> +1 to still do these for each cadence release.
>
> I'm in a somewhat unique situation where Cordova gets bundled as a
> downstream distribution into a vendor product. The vendor product uses the
> Cordova native platforms and core plugins that get embedded in the product,
> the product doesn't fetch any code from git or npm. And the product itself
> doesn't get installed in an npm-like way. There isn't dynamic updates or
> dependency fetching. As we bundle those downstream distributions, I'm very
> used to using the official apache release tarballs.
>
> I'm fine with it being just the native platforms and docs. We don't embed
> the Cordova docs in the product, we just link out to
> cordova.apache.org/docs.
>
> And it would feel weird for an Apache project to not publish source
> releases.
>
> I nobody else wants to invest the time to publish an official apache
> release to dist.apache.org, then I can own that.
>
> -- Marcel
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > It's been mentioned before, but with CLI, there's not a lot of utility in
> > doing official apache releases (uploading signed zips to dist.apache.org
> ).
> >
> > I don't think we should stop doing these entirely, but should we still do
> > these for each Cadence Release? An alternative would be to do them only
> > once / twice a year.
> >
> > Any thoughts on why / why not?
> >
> > Andrew
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from
> your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
>
RE: When to do "Official Apache Releases"
Posted by Ken Wallis <kw...@blackberry.com>.
+1 to Marcel's thoughts. His situation is definitely not unique. ;)
At minimum I think it would be useful to try and solicit feedback on this from a wider audience than the dev list. I imagine there are more than just the watchers on this DL that might be bundling official packages in downstream distributions.
--
Ken Wallis
Senior Product Manager – WebWorks
BlackBerry
650-620-2404
________________________________________
From: Marcel Kinard [cmarcelk@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:20 AM
To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Subject: Re: When to do "Official Apache Releases"
+1 to still do these for each cadence release.
I'm in a somewhat unique situation where Cordova gets bundled as a downstream distribution into a vendor product. The vendor product uses the Cordova native platforms and core plugins that get embedded in the product, the product doesn't fetch any code from git or npm. And the product itself doesn't get installed in an npm-like way. There isn't dynamic updates or dependency fetching. As we bundle those downstream distributions, I'm very used to using the official apache release tarballs.
I'm fine with it being just the native platforms and docs. We don't embed the Cordova docs in the product, we just link out to cordova.apache.org/docs.
And it would feel weird for an Apache project to not publish source releases.
I nobody else wants to invest the time to publish an official apache release to dist.apache.org, then I can own that.
-- Marcel
On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> It's been mentioned before, but with CLI, there's not a lot of utility in
> doing official apache releases (uploading signed zips to dist.apache.org).
>
> I don't think we should stop doing these entirely, but should we still do
> these for each Cadence Release? An alternative would be to do them only
> once / twice a year.
>
> Any thoughts on why / why not?
>
> Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Re: When to do "Official Apache Releases"
Posted by Marcel Kinard <cm...@gmail.com>.
+1 to still do these for each cadence release.
I'm in a somewhat unique situation where Cordova gets bundled as a downstream distribution into a vendor product. The vendor product uses the Cordova native platforms and core plugins that get embedded in the product, the product doesn't fetch any code from git or npm. And the product itself doesn't get installed in an npm-like way. There isn't dynamic updates or dependency fetching. As we bundle those downstream distributions, I'm very used to using the official apache release tarballs.
I'm fine with it being just the native platforms and docs. We don't embed the Cordova docs in the product, we just link out to cordova.apache.org/docs.
And it would feel weird for an Apache project to not publish source releases.
I nobody else wants to invest the time to publish an official apache release to dist.apache.org, then I can own that.
-- Marcel
On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> It's been mentioned before, but with CLI, there's not a lot of utility in
> doing official apache releases (uploading signed zips to dist.apache.org).
>
> I don't think we should stop doing these entirely, but should we still do
> these for each Cadence Release? An alternative would be to do them only
> once / twice a year.
>
> Any thoughts on why / why not?
>
> Andrew
Re: When to do "Official Apache Releases"
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
I don't see why we would ship anything other than the native platforms and
docs in an official Apache release.
We use those from the more frequently shipped CI, and plugins it just makes
good sense to stay on top of now that we have a semblance of dependency
management in Cordova.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> It's been mentioned before, but with CLI, there's not a lot of utility in
> doing official apache releases (uploading signed zips to dist.apache.org).
>
> I don't think we should stop doing these entirely, but should we still do
> these for each Cadence Release? An alternative would be to do them only
> once / twice a year.
>
> Any thoughts on why / why not?
>
> Andrew
>