>> >> We need both zips and tars of the sources for the actual release (what we >> push to dist/).
> Brian wants to know why. It certainly isn't mandated by the board. That gets me into trouble a lot of times. "Because we always have done it that way" is my favorite opportunity to ask why. You guys are certainly free to make tar.gz's if you want and I have nothing to say about it. However here's why I ask: We've tried to setup a standard profile in the apache pom that will meet the basic requirements for any Apache project using Maven to meet the things like LICENSE/NOTICE and signed source archives. So far, the zip has been sufficient for all the projects using it. I can't see any value in duplicating the source archive as a tar.gz because as I mentioned, it shouldn't normally have binaries and therefore the permissions are irrelevant. Since it's unlikely we would want to enable this for all projects, it means you would have to extend the profile in a way that causes you to diverge from the norm and it will make it harder to consume standard changes down the road. (in fact most of the troubles we've seen getting vfs released were related to undoing the legacy profile and using the standard one). So I wonder why a tar.gz sourceball is needed and is it worth it to diverge just for that. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
