> How do you if we think remove file [2], and release a new zip for Sharding-JDBC jars only?
I support this change. Just one question for mentors, do we need include all dependency jars for sharding-jdbc in bin, which most users would choose maven dependency, but no dependency jars makes the hard to use through traditional lib dependency(like no maven/gradle). What do mentors suggest and ppmc think? Sheng Wu Apache SkyWalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin From Wu Sheng 's phone. ------------------ Original ------------------ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Sun,Mar 31,2019 7:51 AM To: dev <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ShardingSphere 4.0.0-RC1 release [ROUND 2] I found another problem. Right now, we have released 3 files. src[1], bin[2] and sharding-proxy-bin [3]. As you know, ShardingSphere is composited by Sharding-JDBC and Sharding-Proxy. Sharding-Proxy is a executable jar, so we released it as [3]. But sharding-jdbc is java lib, do not have executable jar, so we don't release it independently. Src[1] is all source codes, bin[2] include all jars of Sharding-JDBC and Sharding-Proxy, it maybe cause end users confused. How do you if we think remove file [2], and release a new zip for Sharding-JDBC jars only? [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/shardingsphere/4.0.0-RC1/apache-shardingsphere-incubating-4.0.0-RC1-src.zip [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/shardingsphere/4.0.0-RC1/apache-shardingsphere-incubating-4.0.0-RC1-bin.zip [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/shardingsphere/4.0.0-RC1/apache-shardingsphere-incubating-4.0.0-RC1-sharding-proxy.tar.gz ------------------ Liang Zhang (John) Apache ShardingSphere & Dubbo [email protected] <[email protected]> ??2019??3??31?????? ????10:38?????? > Hi Craig, > > > If I understand correctly, the src and bin releases contain no third > party code. Only the sharding-proxy release contains third party code. > > Yes, it is. > > > The license directory for sharding-proxy is non-standard. Usually the > LICENSE should contain the text of all licenses used in the release. Has > this been discussed already? > > We have already put non-standard licenses into `licenses` folder, and add > description in LICENSE file to explain them, do we have any other problems? > > I note that not all Mentors have voted. Can we contact them and ask them > to check this release before we send this to the IPMC? > > > Yes, we can. >
