As I said: > Perhaps the default should be zipping the universe, but allowing the user to > disable one or the other
-----Original Message----- From: Pei Chen [mailto:chen...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 5:15 PM To: dev@ctakes.apache.org Subject: Re: Revert change to r.1768564 A package without the source code is called a product and that isn't what the ASF does. Having to jump around hoops in order just to include the source while performing a release contradicts what an Open Source project does. If the rational is to save a few secs from zipping source code during package time, why not just create a special profile for binaryOnly which should be an exception rather than the norm for an ASF project? On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Finan, Sean <sean.fi...@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote: >> As the apache doc ... states specifically "for release", not "for every >> package build" > > A package is not a release. The rationale is that people are building > binaries of their own sandboxes to hand around the office. They don't want > to double the time and build source that they already have. "The spirit" led > me to make profiles, allowing more user control over what is going on. > > Perhaps the default should be zipping the universe, but allowing the user to > disable one or the other (or certain system types). As I said in my previous > email, I am open to opinions on a future course of action. I am not being > defensive or aggressive about my code, I am simply offering a possible next > step. > > Sean > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pei Chen [mailto:chen...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:51 PM > To: dev@ctakes.apache.org > Subject: Re: Revert change to r.1768564 > > What is the rational for the code change (r.1768564) of defaulting the > distribution to NOT release source code and distribute only binaries? > > It goes the against the fundamentals of a ASF release and the spirit of the > release policy. Just like every other ASF project, the default has always > been to distribute source code and convenience binaries together (source code > being mandatory.) When the ctakes-distribution project was created, it's > intention was to create the src and bin artifacts for distribution just as > the name suggests. The spirit of NOT distributing source by default is not > appropriate for any open source project. Sure, there are many ways to work > around it, but I do not see it as a technical issue. > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Finan, Sean > <sean.fi...@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote: >> For what it is worth, I don't think that reversion is the best course of >> action. As the apache doc that you linked states specifically "for >> release", not "for every package build" ... The correct way to handle this >> is by adding a releaseProfile. >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__maven.apache.org_ >> m >> aven-2Drelease_maven-2Drelease-2Dplugin_perform-2Dmojo.html&d=DwIFaQ& >> c >> =qS4goWBT7poplM69zy_3xhKwEW14JZMSdioCoppxeFU&r=fs67GvlGZstTpyIisCYNYm >> Q >> CP6r0bcpKGd4f7d4gTao&m=1JGJMC89sA12H0FxEnBHl0K0Ea9w-zxWGYbnNTkG8IA&s= >> V KIk2as8kChuuwI3LkL99t5XzkEjLYHiMkfQJL4gF4c&e= >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__maven.apache.org_ >> m >> aven-2Drelease_maven-2Drelease-2Dplugin_examples_perform-2Drelease.ht >> m >> l&d=DwIFaQ&c=qS4goWBT7poplM69zy_3xhKwEW14JZMSdioCoppxeFU&r=fs67GvlGZs >> t >> TpyIisCYNYmQCP6r0bcpKGd4f7d4gTao&m=1JGJMC89sA12H0FxEnBHl0K0Ea9w-zxWGY >> b nNTkG8IA&s=fqq7gqZOTpzPlv1qGjXqvMmPheqT9M_VVrxMGGUWITg&e= >> >> We may want to move forward, not back. Thoughts? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Murali Minnah [mailto:mmin...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 10:28 AM >> To: dev@ctakes.apache.org >> Subject: Revert change to r.1768564 >> >> Hello fellow cTAKERs >> >> Can someone please help revert this change? >> >> r.1768564 >> ctakes-distribution/pom.xml >> "Separated build into 2 profiles: packageBinary and packageSource >> packageBinary is enabled by default, packageSource is not" >> >> >> This changed prevents source code from being distributed using the >> default apache release profile when running mvn >> release:prepare/perform. In fact, it should be the opposite. At >> ASF, binaries are only distributed as a convenience; source code >> should always be distributed and binaries should be able to be built >> from source. [1] >> >> [1] >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apache.org_le >> g >> al_release-2Dpolicy.html-23source-2Dpackages&d=DwIBaQ&c=qS4goWBT7popl >> M >> 69zy_3xhKwEW14JZMSdioCoppxeFU&r=fs67GvlGZstTpyIisCYNYmQCP6r0bcpKGd4f7 >> d >> 4gTao&m=TcreDrqDHWUkbuW2epBdEaFrwZNKbGPossM9FjA9jKM&s=rpoKRwFC5zDIVDB >> I >> V4u8VP_xJreK4AveCzl8eM0MlxI&e= >> >> Thanks, >> Murali
