On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Jeffrey Dever wrote: > Hmmm, so even though www.apache.org and jakarta.apache.org are served > from the same physical machines, we are to keep two binary and source > repositories up to date with new releases? Why isn't one just a softlink > of the other?
+1. I've not done a release since the mirroring thing, but it seems painful. Has the deployment documentation been updated for projects? I tend to dutifully follow both the Commons and Taglibs deployment routines. Other than a symlink, why not just cron a copy somehow. > And speaking of releases, why in commons do we have two packages for > each release, one for source and one for binaries? These are small > components where the biggest thing about them is the generated javadoc > which is in both. I find that people usually download the binary drop > and then ask on the mailing list "where is the example code?" which is > of course in the source package. > > Can't we just release one package with everything in it? In general the > only thing that makes a binary a binary is that it has a packaged jar > file which is small anyway compared to the source and documentation. My vote would be for a distribution build, and a jar. Both downloadable. Most of the time I come looking for just the jar, and have to grab lots of other things. Sometimes I want the docs, but mainly it is the jar. Is there any need to support both tar.gz and .zip? With the exception of some minor pain on Apple machines for tar.gz [although I've never had this myself], it seems we could ditch one of these distribution mechanisms. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
