+1 to still do these for each cadence release. I'm in a somewhat unique situation where Cordova gets bundled as a downstream distribution into a vendor product. The vendor product uses the Cordova native platforms and core plugins that get embedded in the product, the product doesn't fetch any code from git or npm. And the product itself doesn't get installed in an npm-like way. There isn't dynamic updates or dependency fetching. As we bundle those downstream distributions, I'm very used to using the official apache release tarballs.
I'm fine with it being just the native platforms and docs. We don't embed the Cordova docs in the product, we just link out to cordova.apache.org/docs. And it would feel weird for an Apache project to not publish source releases. I nobody else wants to invest the time to publish an official apache release to dist.apache.org, then I can own that. -- Marcel On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > It's been mentioned before, but with CLI, there's not a lot of utility in > doing official apache releases (uploading signed zips to dist.apache.org). > > I don't think we should stop doing these entirely, but should we still do > these for each Cadence Release? An alternative would be to do them only > once / twice a year. > > Any thoughts on why / why not? > > Andrew
