On 19/11/2007, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > On 11/19/07, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> sebb wrote: > > <snip/> > >>> There does not seem to have been a final decision (or even summary) of > >>> the e-mail thread, which is a pity. Probably ought to be on the > >>> developer section of the commons site. > >> Consensus was not reached, so I didn't bother writing any docs for it. > >> > >>> However: > >>> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--all--What%27s-in-a-distribution--p8133008.html > >>> does ask for the whole of SVN to be included. > >>> > >>> AFAICS, only one message supported having a single combined archive; > >>> at least one other message referred to the need to keep archive sizes > >>> small. > >> There was a wide variety of opinions, but no clear direction. I have no > >> objections towards changing the assemblies. I just don't have the energy > >> to push for a standard for Commons assemblies at this time. So I would > >> like to use the assembly that we have now for this release. > >> > >> > > <snap/> > > > > As I mentioned in the thread referenced above, I do think each > > component needs to have some sense of communal responsibility, one > > that goes beyond this component and this release. I'm sure we can > > accomodate variations to distros as it makes sense, and we can > > collectively choose to change current styles. > > > > However, having components package releases differently hurts because > > (overarching sentiment is we have many interdependencies, anyone using > > one component is likely to need many): > > > > * For users, having the distros be familiar means less time / > > frustration to figure things out > > * For developers, having distros be familiar means less inertia to > > take on new releases > > I agree with all of the above.
> We need a common, well documented way of > packaging up our distributions. As I stated earlier, I'm not opposed to > changing to another form of distribution assemblies. I just don't have > the energy ATM to be the driving force behind how such assemblies should > look. If someone says "Hey, do it like this" and everyone agrees on > that, then I'll change to it. I've created Jira issue LOGGING-118 which has a patch to create both source and binary distribution archives. I just copied the relevant bits from another commons project (lang). Seems to work for me. > > Finally, for clarity, if you really want to proceed the way you have > > things set up, I don't consider that to be a blocking factor. In any > > case, the time you're spending on v1.1.1 is appreciated. > > > > -Rahul > > Thanks > > -- > Dennis Lundberg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
