>
> That's the theory, we wouldn't spent so much time to get the Maven
> artifacts right if that was true in practice ;)
>
but pushing Maven artifacts on central repo is not a must, this is
something we at Commons decided to do - and we have to manage Maven
release constraints required by central repo, not by the ASF
> I would agree with Benedikt, the test sources shouldn't be included in
> the binary package
the assembly descriptor has currently this conf:
<fileSet>
<directory>target</directory>
<outputDirectory>lib</outputDirectory>
<includes>
<include>*.jar</include>
</includes>
</fileSet>
so it is clear why all jars are included - and again, since there is
no policy what should or not be included in -bin, it is still
acceptable
> and the documentation should include the content of
> the site (if the site has tutorials or examples).
>
agreed, but not a blocker.
Thanks for reviewing!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Le 25/03/2013 23:48, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>
>> Please note that what Apache really releases are the *sources* and not
>> binary archives - an interesting reading is "What is a release?"[1]
>> where it is specified:
>
> That's the theory, we wouldn't spent so much time to get the Maven
> artifacts right if that was true in practice ;)
>
> I would agree with Benedikt, the test sources shouldn't be included in
> the binary package, and the documentation should include the content of
> the site (if the site has tutorials or examples).
>
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
