+1 to all suggestions.

ASF has a release policy 
(https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-distribution) and 
artifacts must be uploaded to the mirrors.
There is also a release distribution policy 
(https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution.html#download-links) that says 

   "The website documentation for any Apache product must provide public 
download links where interested parties may obtain current official source 
releases and accompanying cryptographic files."

So I see no reason to stop publishing binary convenience releases in the apache 
mirrors, although few will use that channel.

Jan

> 12. okt. 2021 kl. 01:55 skrev Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]>:
> 
> For what it's worth, I did a little survey on how other
> library/sdk/framework projects distribute their artifacts other than
> Maven repositories.
> 
> - Log4j distributes tgz and zip artifacts via the "Download" page.
> https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/download.html
> 
> - JavaFX distributes only zip artifacts via the "Download" page
> https://gluonhq.com/products/javafx/
> 
> - Jersey has a "Download" page but it is actually a facade to Maven Central.
> https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jersey/download.html
> 
> - JUnit5 has no "download" page
> https://junit.org/junit5/
> 
> - Spring has no "download" page (as far as I know)
> https://spring.io/projects/spring-framework
> 
> - Jackson has no "download" page (github repo also serves as their
> documentation).
> https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-core
> 
> They are only small examples, but it seems to me that recent or
> recently renewed projects would tend to have no explicit "download"
> page at all. (?)
> I'm not sure there are any ASF rules or policies about that.
> 
> Tomoko
> 
> 2021年10月11日(月) 21:59 Robert Muir <[email protected]>:
>> 
>> +1 overall, comments inline.
>> 
>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:48 AM Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi.
>>> 
>>> These are the thoughts that occurred to me while rewriting the
>>> packaging in the build system. I think they're worth the discussion
>>> because they could limit the size of the published artifacts as well
>>> as their perceptive quality.
>>> 
>>> 1. Who is going to use the lib/*.jar files we distribute in binary
>>> releases? I don't think they are useful for anything. The dependency
>>> information for modules is stored in maven POMs (and can be easily
>>> written to text files, if it's really something people are dying to
>>> preserve).
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't think redistributing those JARs makes any sense other than to
>>> make Luke work... What I would suggest is to remove third-party JARs
>>> entirely from the binary distribution and have a separate binary
>>> artifact with a fully functional top-level Luke application.
>>> Alternatively, move those third-party JARs to the top-level
>>> /thirdparty folder and Luke can access them from there.
>> 
>> +1, I think there is already an issue open to give luke its own
>> "release artifact"
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2. Some of the *.txt files both at the top-level and inside subfolders
>>> contain obsolete information. We should at least re-read these. My
>>> personal opinion is that some of the README.txt files inside modules
>>> have little practical use - their content should go inside the javadoc
>>> (package level, perhaps) and this should be the only source of
>>> documentation.
>> 
>> +1, either nuke it, or fold it into javadoc, or at the very least
>> rename to README.md
>> 
>>> 
>>> 3. I would remove the "zip" binary distribution. I'm on Windows myself
>>> so tgz is a tad more difficult to work with but Lucene is a library.
>>> If somebody downloads a binary distribution they should know how to
>>> unpack a tgz file (cygwin, total commander, whatever else).
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 

Reply via email to