On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > >> Targeting for 2.0, including updates in the README, and having mean for > >> helping > >> the downstream user find the appropriate licensing information makes me > >> much > >> more comfortable with this. > >> > >> I have to ask though, why not just do source only releases? Or source > >> > > > > Not having the binary release would suck. Its nice to be able to easily > > test the latest version of Accumulo on a cluster. Would not be able to > > easily run our own cluster test suites against release candidates. > > > > > > We don't need to have artifacts in the release to do this though. We > could have a nightly build job (for use on dev@accumulo) that makes > the binary artifacts needed. That job can take a git ref and default > to HEAD. if we want to grab e.g. release candidates to deploy we could > then use it. > > If these test clusters are going to have to run some script to pull > down 3rd party jars, what's the difference in having that script > either build the accumulo jars or download them from a jenkins job? > To be clear, I would not want to just drop the binary tar ball w/o a suitable replacement. If all we had was the source tar ball I would have write my own scripts create something for testing a release on a cluster. > > -- > busbey >
