On Nov 18, 2011, at 10:01 AM, sebb wrote: > On 18 November 2011 15:04, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:10 PM, sebb wrote: >>> >>>> On 17 November 2011 16:30, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Sebb, >>>>> >>>>> Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are >>>>> other Apache projects that release a single distribution with both source >>>>> code and jars. For example, >>>>> http://mirror.metrocast.net/apache//zookeeper/zookeeper-3.3.3/ . So, is >>>> >>>> I don't think that's a good example to follow. >>>> >>>>> source distribution strictly required? >>>> >>>> In my opinion, yes. >>> >>> I agree with Sebb. >> >> I am still confused. All the source code that is needed to build the >> product is in the tgz. Can someone explain how that's not a source >> distribution? > > The way I read the releases page [1] - see last para of section - a > binary release is an optional extra which is provided as a separate > file. > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
This is a reasonable opinion about how releases should be structured that I also share but, that decision is for the community of that project to decide. So long as the distribution contains all the necessary source code to build the artifact we shouldn't care what else they bundle in it unless it becomes an intolerable burden to our infrastructure. These kinds of qualitative decisions are best left to the community of that project to decide. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
