On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 01:40, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le jeu. 5 août 2021 à 01:46, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 13:38, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > Le mer. 4 août 2021 à 04:27, Matt Juntunen <matt.a.juntu...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I apologize if this was resolved already and I missed it, but did we > > > > land anywhere on the issue of whether or not to release binaries of > > > > example code modules? I've included the example module binaries in > > > > previous releases of numbers and geometry but I don't think that they > > > > are actually useful just as binaries. Are we ok to just leave the > > > > example modules as code included in the source release? Also, should > > > > they be part of the deployed site or should that just be for the > > > > public API portions? > > > > > > FTR, I quote the question raised in another thread where this issue > > > was first mentioned: > > > "[...] how can we release (some official version of) the project as > source > > > without also releasing the (convenience) binaries for everything?" > > > > The ASF releases source. > > > > Binaries are optional. > > This has been stated in my quote (cf. "convenience"). > The question is whether we want to complexify the release procedure > in order to not build the binaries for some of the source. > What's the gain for the RM/developers/users? > Looking at the modular project for RNG it may complexify the release procedure to not distribute the binary jars for the examples if we still wish to report the examples on the site using the modular site structure. Currently we include all the examples and release using the goals 'package site site:stage deploy'. If we omit the examples from the module hierarchy then they will not be included in the site. The examples will still be included in the source release as it creates an archive of everything from the root directory. However at present the examples in RNG do not have a useful site page. The page simply states a single line description and then a second line stating the module is not part of the public API. See the current examples overview page [1]. Leaving them out of the site would remove the ability to browse the source using the module project reports. It would remove the javadoc module report. The javadocs are not very informative (see [2]). IMO these module reports are not useful and I would drop these entirely from the site. The examples in RNG are used for testing functionality. Some of these examples create a runnable jar file using the shade plugin to bring in all the dependencies. These are the most useful part of the examples as they would allow an end user to run performance tests locally without having to build the program. However the shaded uber-jars have never been released and would require some licence checking to be done to see if they can be distributed. I think it is preferable to perform the release using only the public API modules. The examples will be released in the source tarball. The question is whether the examples require some additional advertisement on the main website, for example an additional page, or section in the user guide, to describe what examples are available, how to build them locally and why you might want to run them. Otherwise they will just be left as a developer's secret hidden in the source release. Alex [1] https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-rng/commons-rng-examples/index.html [2] https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-rng/commons-rng-examples/commons-rng-examples-stress/apidocs/org/apache/commons/rng/examples/stress/package-summary.html > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
