How much of Apache Extras is "binary dumping ground" (as used by OO builds), and how much is just "source-code for projects that can't/won't quite fit into ASF" (e.g. for licensing reasons or lack of community)?
As long as you have the source code, then you can attach binaries to tagged releases in GitHub. Atlassian's BitBucket likewise provides both source code and binary hosting - here binaries are easier to attach independently. As I said, I also found BinTray a great way to do independent downloads, with the optional capability of Maven repository with mirroring to Central as a nice thing for those still doing Java/Groovy/Clojure/Scala etc. It's still "all eggs in one company's basket" of course.. but then so is SourceForge.. and at the moment I would be more worried about SourceForge disappearing than GitHub or Atlassian. On 13 April 2015 at 06:17, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > On 19.03.2015 06:22, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >> +1 for GitHub - as Apache Extras are easily mini-communities of one >> or two people and not as clear way in to contribute. >> >> >> GitHub should seriously be considered. Making an apache-extras >> organization there should be straight forward. > > GitHub neither provides nor allows the kind of service that Apache > Extras needs. It's pretty much useless as a pure download server, their > terms explicitly say they can shut down a project without notice if they > don't like its bandwidth characteristics. > >> As for binaries - I found it very useful to use BinTray for Beanshell >> - as I could do both Maven and regular downloads: > > Do please consider that all the world cannot use Maven just as all the > world is not written in Java. > > -- Brane > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
