On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:07 PM, SHUANG SU <sushuang0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Justin, > > I think I should remove the jar about rat from the artifact, and then > there is no binary code anymore. > > But I am puzzled about the definition of the term "compiled code". > Generally, the JavaScript code does not need to be compiled to binary. The > code in "dist/**" is also JavaScript code, which is combined to some single > files and some of them are minified. And the ".map" file is provided for > mapping each term of the combined code to the original code in src/**. > Without or without the ".map", the combined code can be checked. I think > this kind of combined code is not "compiled code" ... It's not purely about being able to check things, nor about how you define the word "compiled". You also need to be able to make changes. From http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages : "... All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make changes to the software being released. ..." In the sense that the original source has been passed through a tool that mangled it into a form that can't be readily modified, it's not source, even if you don't want to call it "compiled". - Mike
