Thanks, but I'm still not sure I'll change anything in VFS. I prefer having
both the source and binary archives built in the same project. With the change
to the Apache pom the source archive is built in the parent and the binary is
built in the dist project. As we also discussed, it may be pos
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Thanks, but I'm still not sure I'll change anything in VFS. I prefer having
> both the source and binary archives built in the same project. With the
> change to the Apache pom the source archive is built in the parent and the
> binary is b
Ralph,
We made the change to easily allow projects to select the tar.gz & zip
source distribution now and it's being staged for a vote today:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1038139
Once this is released and you update to the new Apache pom, you can
select the tar.gz assembly s
On 11/18/10 10:27 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 18/11/2010 15:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
The definitive ASF position is:
- the ASF releases source code
- the src release should contain everything needed to build
- binary releases are optional
- b
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I haven't started a vote yet on VFS. I thought it would be nice to have a
> common policy on how to do this for all commons releases. I'd prefer to
> leave the javadoc and source jars in the binary distribution so I'm not going
> to chan
On Nov 18, 2010, at 8:21 AM, James Carman wrote:
> A release can't be vetoed anyway. So, you've got one -1 (if I am
> counting correctly). Go ahead and release it if you've got enough
> other folks behind it (minimum of three +1s)
I haven't started a vote yet on VFS. I thought it would be nice
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Jörg Schaible
wrote:
>
> I don't count any -1, even Oliver voted +1.
>
There was a -1 from Daniel Savarese, right?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional com
On 18 November 2010 16:09, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>> It would be good to have a definitive position on this. The VFS build
>> includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though
>> there is a separate source distribu
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 07:12
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Release distribution contents.
>
> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
IMO, it wou
James Carman wrote:
> A release can't be vetoed anyway. So, you've got one -1 (if I am
> counting correctly).
I don't count any -1, even Oliver voted +1.
> Go ahead and release it if you've got enough
> other folks behind it (minimum of three +1s)
Personally I don't care if these two jars are
A release can't be vetoed anyway. So, you've got one -1 (if I am
counting correctly). Go ahead and release it if you've got enough
other folks behind it (minimum of three +1s)
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>> It
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> It would be good to have a definitive position on this. The VFS build
> includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though
> there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is
> complete while the
On 18/11/2010 15:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
The definitive ASF position is:
- the ASF releases source code
- the src release should contain everything needed to build
- binary releases are optional
- binary releases, if provided, should be deri
It would be good to have a definitive position on this. The VFS build includes
the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a
separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the
source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to
14 matches
Mail list logo
