On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Few simple questions: > > > > Should we use 2 different dirs for src and binary distribution ? Or > > maybe 3 dirs ( src, bin, doc ) ? > > Why duplicate the existing distributions? They're available, mirrored and > well understood.
+1 I was just commenting on the original proposal - that included the dist/ tar.gz. Maybe a better alternative would be to just enhance the current dist layout with a jars/ directory, instead of creating a whole new structure ? And the only remaining issue would be defining the metadata format for dependencies and other info. > > Are "milestone" builds acceptable ? Should we get some weekly gump > > builds from HEAD into the repository ? > FWIW, Milestone and even 'snapshot' builds have proven necessary for > projects using Maven. I agree. Even more for projects with longer release cycles ( tomcat, ant, etc ), where betas and milestones are likely to stay around. > > What policy should we use for removing older versions ( or we just keep > > everything ) ? > It needs to be driven by usage. If someone is still using ant 1.1, fine > keep it available. There's nothing worse than a build failing because the > repository has changed. +1 again. I would add "usage and project policies/needs". If a major issue is discovered in a jar - I see a good reason to remove it and add a fixed version. A build failing is better in this case. > > Since the versioned jar/unversioned dir format is used - I think various > > > PMCs should try to get the various projects to use the same format > > internally. > That's a project decision. I don't see anyone should be forcing the > projects to change their build process to match the repository. That's why I think projects and repo should use a similar layout. If the documentations and project tools expect "ant.jar", and the repository gets ant-1.5.1.jar - then we have a small problem. ( there are pieces of code that add a certain jar or check for a particular name - all manifests with class-path are vulnerable ). Again - it's maven choice on what to do with its repo, I'm talking only about the ASF repo - and I think it should match with the project layout. If a consensus is reached on a particular naming - it would be very important to get it adopted by projects. But having a projects files in the ASF repo in sync with the project needs ( and code ) is more important. > the ibiblio repository has manual admin as an option (at the moment it's > the only one). > > I would prefer the reverse ( versioned dirs / unversioned jars ) - but I > > > can live with the reverse if it does have a "majority" support. > So asking the projects which format they would like for a repository they > don't currently use? Sounds like asking for uninformed opinions. I'd be > happier to come ask them to participate in a discussion here. Quite the contrary - I think the projects know a bit better how their jars should be used. Again - code and build files that checks for a particular name is common ( and I don't see anything very wrong with it ). I strongly disagree with the statement that the third party distributor knows better than the original project authors how the project files should be layout. Sometimes redistributors thay need to make adjustments to match their layout - but that allways causes some pain, and the only way to get around is to have the original project support the layout ( for example - apache httpd and RedHat ). > > Could we put at least this option to a vote, just to have a record that > > it isn't just a random decision but what the committers really want ? > Why not ask the users of the repository. The committers wont be the main > users. No, but they do the work that is used by the users :-) Costin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
