I think we need other PPMC members feedback.
I am OK w/ or w/o dependency libs in sharding-jdbc binary. ------------------ Sheng Wu Apache SkyWalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin Twitter, wusheng1108 ------------------ Original ------------------ From: "apache.clr"<[email protected]>; Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2019 02:20 AM To: "dev"<[email protected]>; Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ShardingSphere 4.0.0-RC1 release [ROUND 2] Hi, > On Mar 31, 2019, at 11:00 AM, ???? Sheng Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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? The contents of a convenience binary are decided by the project. If you expect that users will already have java and maven installed, it would make sense to me to release a binary that was in the form of a maven project, with dependencies listed in the pom.xml and the jar files in the target directory. The user could then go to the project, enter "mvn xxx" and maven would download the dependencies and run the xxx task. But you could as well have a different packaging that contained the sharding-jdbc jar file and a script that installed it into the user's local mvn repository. You could even have a tools directory that contained the dependent jars and installed them into the user's local repository. Or have a lib directory that was referenced directly from the mvn pom without being installed into the local repository. I don't have much experience with projects that rely on other packaging tools. Anyway, as long as all of the non-Apache projects actually distributed with the binary release are documented in the appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files, the project can choose what is best for their users. Craig > > > > 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. Craig L Russell [email protected]
