I agree with you and I am also for a single unix-type source assembly. saving energy and resources.
regards, aki 2011/6/22 Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>: > > Question: > > Does anyone really feel strongly that we need separate windows and unix SOURCE > distributions? We can easily chop a minute or two off the assembly build if > we only have a single source distribution. Most of the time is spent doing > the scans and the line ending filtering for the two separate source > distribution assemblies. > > I would propose that we drop to just a single source distro assembly. > Reasons: > > 1) Faster for us. :-) > > 2) I'm going to doubt many people even use the source distributions. Gotta > love Java and Maven. :-) > > 3) Windows does a good job handling the unix style endings now. Really, if > you're using git on Windows to clone the camel repo, your getting it with unix > endings anyway. Has anyone even noticed? (git doesn't have an eol-style and > thus the repo that is created on unix would have the unix style) > > 4) Other projects haven't had an issue. For example, CXF has just a single > "src" assembly (no filtering) and hasn't had an issue. It produces both zip > and tar/gz, but the contents are exactly the same. (CXF also only has a > single binary distro assembly, contents exactly the same) > > 5) Technically, the "source" distribution should be an exact copy of the tag > of the source that was used to build the release. The filtering that is done > really makes it not an exact copy. > > > On my machine, a simple test shows that "mvn install" in the apache-camel > directory drops from 2m28s down to 1m2s with this type of change. > > Anyway, I'm just throwing out an idea. I'm kind of sick of sitting and > watching it build assemblies. :-) > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org > http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > >
