On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Marcel Offermans <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 25, 2012, at 19:03 PM, Bram de Kruijff wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Marcel Offermans >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Do my answers help, or make it worse? ;) >> >> A bit of both :D That is to say... I think we agree on the big >> picture. But my main question is "What will the tangible form of a >> release be?" and you basically say "I don't care" which is fair enough >> but not really helpful ;) > > The tangible form could be a zip/tar.gz that includes all the binary > artifacts. Of course we can also publish the bundles in the Maven repository > and/or in an OBR. > > All of these (binary releases) should be "for convenience" only. As an open > source project, our main goal should be to produce a source release that > people can build themselves. > > We've had some of these discussions in Apache ACE as well, and probably for > the platform the most convenient way would be to release the whole source > tree as one big release and then the most logical binary release would be one > with all the artifacts as well. What I don't know is how Maven reacts when > releasing some subprojects that have not changed. This probably needs some > thought.
Yes, I remember that discussion[0] and I still strongly disagree. I do not want to make a big non functional tarball source or binary that nobody will ever use. As I recall the only reason we did that for ACE was to cut through the Apache red tape. We have multiple pretty awesome delivery methods for source and binaries with git, maven and provisioning that tie in nicely with development environment because of the granularity. I do not believe any developer would wish for anything more. I guess I'm more thinking about the development (eg, maven dependencies) and/or provisioning use cases. What do we give people to tell them "Hey look here is release x.y". Right now it's an email referencing the repository and, as all artifact have the same version, it's easy to find out where they are. Following, your example that will get harder because of the independent version and so I'm wondering about a solution. Anyway, getting back on topic, I was just wondering if strict semantic versioning will work at the release level. It could bounce from 1.0 to 2.0 (or even 3.0) just because there are some (non functional but package) changes in a peripheral bundle that nobody uses. I guess we'll see :) grz Bram [0] http://apache.markmail.org/message/6sihglvuwcisyk5a > Greetings, Marcel > > > _______________________________________________ > Amdatu-developers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.amdatu.org/mailman/listinfo/amdatu-developers _______________________________________________ Amdatu-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.amdatu.org/mailman/listinfo/amdatu-developers
