commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Torsten Curdt <>
Subject Re: [vote] releasing jci RC3 as 1.0 ...maybe this time?
Date Mon, 04 Jun 2007 07:08:11 GMT

On 04.06.2007, at 06:49, Phil Steitz wrote:

> Sigs and hashes check fine, but I had to grab your key from
>  Make sure to add this
> under JCI somewhere (see below)

It's there 

> * I think that for consistency and at least to provide a definitive
> location for the release artifacts, KEYS, and release notes, we should
> continue the practice of rolling combined zips/tarballs and putting
> these on the mirrors under /dist/jakarta-commons.  The separate jars
> in [cli] are pretty small, so the "who needs what" issue is not really
> a big one here, IMO.

So you are saying +1 for the assembly release ...but I don't get the  
"who needs what" part.

> ** It is not clear to me how to build the binaries from the provided
> sources.  The *sources* jars contain java source code. Do I need to
> unpack this code with a common root and use the pom in
> /org/apache/commons/commons-jci/1.0/commons-jci-1.0.pom?  I think we
> should provide either a conventional source distribution or some
> instructions on how to unpack and build the sources

Hm... I don't see the source jars to be used for building the whole  
project but provide the sources for things like debugging.
So if you want to build it from the source I would expect people to  
check it out of subversion. Anyone that is capable of building a  
project should be able to do a svn checkout to get the source for that.

> * by itself is not a showstopper for me, but ** is.  I think a basic
> requirement that we have is that release binaries can be built from
> the sources in our distributions.  In the m1 days, we used to say
> "maven clean dist" or at least "ant clean dist" needs to work from the
> unpacked source distribution.  I don't care if it is a shell script,
> ant, maven, or provided instructions, but users should have an obvious
> and effective way to build from the sources in our releases.  Sorry if
> I am just missing the obvious way to do this using m2.

See above ...I think subversion is our source distribution. I don't  
really see a point in providing a classic source distribution. But  
maybe that's too much change for now ;)

I'll prepare the assembly distributions and hope to get your +1 then :)


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message