[1] and [2] were voted on because these were included in https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedatafu-1003/ (link won't work now because the artifacts were released), which was included in the message that opened the vote on the release candidate. These are just the source package for each corresponding artifact. They aren't intended to be the source for the entire repo. That's what [3] is for. These sources JARs are useful because the IDE can use it to show you the source for a class. This has been my experience with them at least. If there is some other established practice with sources JARs then I'm not familiar with it.
-Matt On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > I don't understand this comment. Was there a typo? The 1.3.1 release > > included both the binaries and sources. > > I would suggest making one more release and have both the source and > binary reviews by the incubator. But lets wait to see what your mentors > think as they have a better idea than me re project progress. > > > Can you explain more what you mean by this? I don't understand. There > is > > a single source release [3] that can generate binaries [1] and [2]. > > The source packages there at [1] and [2] is not the source package that > was voted on (it may be a subset?) that seems like a concern. > > Thanks, > Justin
