Thanks, Julian.
Josh, do you feel that tar.gz is a good choice?
If there is consensus for tar.gz, I will update the script and release
instructions for avatica-go, so that we only release a tar.gz for the
next release.
Francis
On 28/04/2018 6:21 AM, Julian Hyde wrote:
Francis,
Your reason
Francis,
Your reasoning makes sense. .tar.gz is the most widely accepted format. Windows
is less important these days, and Windows hackers have by now figured out how
to install tar.
+1 to just releasing .tar.gz.
Julian
> On Apr 26, 2018, at 3:31 PM, Francis Chuang wrote:
>
> Personally,
Personally, creating the zip isn't onerous for avatica-go because we are
automating it via the release script. Having said that, the `zip`
command isn't as nice as the `tar` command in terms of options and
customization. I assume that something similar is also in place for
calcite and avatica u
File sizes (for apache-calcite-1.16.0-src)
19,747,328 .tar (uncompressed)
5,557,353 .zip
3,701,880 .tar.gz
2,910,953 .tar.bz2
2,645,024 .tar.xz
Not that file size is very important.
Julian
> On Apr 26, 2018, at 8:31 AM, Josh Elser wrote:
>
> I think tar.gz or tar.xz are both good optio
I think tar.gz or tar.xz are both good options and see them fairly
equally (not sure if maven-assembly-plugin supports xz, but would be
surprised if it didn't). bz2 is just "slow" in my mind, but I suppose
we're not really producing very large artifacts so it wouldn't be a pain.
I am good with
We should talk about this. For Calcite and Avatica, we have to produce .tar.gz
and .zip because we always have.
But how about producing just one archive, in a more modern format, say .tar.bz2
or .tar.xz? Most people have those compressors installed. It makes the release
process more straightfor
