sebb wrote:
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.
I think you are missing my point. I can copy those files too, but it's
the easy way out. We (the whole of Commons) wouldn't gain anything by
doing that. To gain something we should have a proposal for how
assemblies should be done in Commons and which files should be included.
That proposal should then be voted on and documented. Template assembly
files should be committed to commons-build, so that everyone knows how
it is done.
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
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
