Files present in the releases

[James Smith <js...@apache.org>]

Hi,

I was wondering what files should be in both releases (bin and src).

Here is my point of concerns:

1) We currently have two README, one for welcoming on GitHub and giving information to developers (README.md) and another one for the release (README).

I feel like in the bin release, we should only have the release README and in the src release do we need both, or can we only add the release README as well?

2) How close does the src release need to be from the git repository?
We currently manually define the files that we want in the configuration of the assembly plugin. Is this a good practice?


Thank you for enlightening me on the subject which is still not familiar.

Best regards.

James Smith

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@baremaps.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@baremaps.apache.org

Re: Files present in the releases

[Bertil Chapuis <bc...@gmail.com>]

> 1) We currently have two README, one for welcoming on GitHub and giving information to developers (README.md) and another one for the release (README).
> 
> I feel like in the bin release, we should only have the release README and in the src release do we need both, or can we only add the release README as well?

Personally, I have a preference for a README.md file for GitHub, a dedicated README file for the src distribution and a possibly a third dedicated README file for the binary distribution. After reading the current README file, I think it doesn’t make sense to have it in the binary distribution.

To prevent confusion at the root of the GitHub repository, we could move the README files for the source release and for the binary distribution in another directory (e.g. baremaps-cli/src/assembly).

> 2) How close does the src release need to be from the git repository?
> We currently manually define the files that we want in the configuration of the assembly plugin. Is this a good practice?

From what I understand the release should only include files which are compliant with the Apache License and at the same time be sufficient to build the software.

In our case, we have test files which are apparently not compliant with the Apache License, but necessary to make baremaps robust (e.g. openstreetmap data). I think we should consider using the assembly plugin to exclude these files from the release. I don’t think it is realistic to rewrite synthetic versions of these files for the sole purpose of testing. I’m not sure if it is a good practice, but at least it sounds pragmatic ;)