On 21.01.2013 21:08, Benson Margulies wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.frank...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Monday, January 21, 2013, Benson Margulies wrote: >> >>> Matt, can you reference the policy that category A deps can't be >>> sitting in svn in binary? Of course, these folks can learn to use ivy, >>> maven, or maven-ant-tasks to reduce the need for this, but I'd like to >>> be clear on whether this is required behavior or not. I thought that a >>> source package could incorporate binaries of at least 'A' >>> dependencies, but I am happy to be corrected. And svn is yet another >>> question. >> >> I am referring to this discussion http://s.apache.org/MUZ > Well, that clear enough, even if it is a typical example of how our > founders yell at us but we have no mechanism to channel those yells > into concise, unambiguous, documentation.
Per haps off-topic ... but I fail to see how "source release" is ambiguous or not concise. Unless the Java world has a different definition of "source code" than us stuck-in-the-mud plodders, and it's only considered binary once it's been JIT-compiled. :) -- Brane --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
