Michael Baessler wrote:
> Adam Lally wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 2007 12:19 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
>>  
>>> So - my preference would be mostly one of "don't care", but with a very
>>> slight leaning toward having the release event result in the
>>> creation of
>>> a new subdir under d/i/uima/<release-identification> and under that,
>>> the
>>> set of files that go with that release; with files that don't change
>>> with each release, like KEYS, at the top.  Such an organization would
>>> allow a user browsing the directories to download both the binary and
>>> source releases for a particular version, perhaps slightly more easily.
>>>
>>> I can also see the value of top level "binaries, source, docs"
>>> organization, because a user browsing the directory would likely
>>> have in
>>> mind one of these things they want to go after (although, that might
>>> run
>>> into difficulties if we distribute things that don't fall into these
>>> categories, at some point).
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> I also see value both ways.  But given that ant, commons, and httpd do
>> it with the top-level "binaries, source, docs" organization, my
>> (slight) preference would be to do it that way.  If there are any
>> users who actually go poking around directly in dist/incubator, it
>> would be nice for them if there was some consistency.
>>
>> -Adam
>>   
> Let's stop discussing and make progress :-) Which way should we go. I
> think Adam is right, we should do it the most common way.
> So do you all agree with my preview layout?
Yes, let's go with it.

-Marshall