FWIW, Commons VFS does not publish its Sandox module. One reason to not publish a binaray version of a module is to lessen the chance of complaints of breaking changes. This might not happen for examples but you never know what people do with code we put out there.
Gary On Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 08:06 Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi. > > Le mer. 21 juil. 2021 à 05:09, Matt Juntunen > <matt.a.juntu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > Even though I've included the example module binaries in releases for > > commons-numbers and commons-geometry, I would vote that we only > > include them in source form in the future. > > Well the question is whether *this* is an acceptable option for a > "Commons" component. > Currently: Whatever is officially released (i.e. as source) is also > provided as (convenience) binaries. > > IIUC departing from that needs a *vote*. > [What we can readily do is (entirely) exclude a module from the > release (as was done for [Numbers] v1.0).] > If the rest of the message is not convincing, feel free to start a > [Vote] thread. > > PersonalIy I don't mind either way, but I'm not sure that special > handling of the "examples" is worth the trouble. > > > For these particular > > projects, they do not seem to be worthwhile to have as binaries. > > Well, the benchmarks are in the "examples" module, and for one > thing, it would be nice if they can be run without maven installed > (I don't know whether it already works). > > The rest are usually toy applications but they are also meant as > a "Get Started" user guide; having them part of the release ensures > that they are up-to-date. > > Also the "examples" module sometimes contain non-trivial applications > (see e.g. [RNG] thanks to Alex), and having some component exclude > it while others don't will be a potential source of confusion (for the RM > and the reviewers). > > > I have not looked at the commons-math examples, though. > > Those that illustrate usage of the "neuralnet" codes are some kind of > validation tests; without them, unit tests are not sufficient to > demonstrate > that the code works as expected (cf. the relatively low coverage). > > Regards, > Gilles > > >>> [....] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
