Sorry, on the first sentence, I meant "I don't have any problems with *changing* the way we do things"
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 09:56, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Note that I don't have any problems with the way we do things in mina, > but fwiw, the core mina library has exactly the same structure: > * a binary / source distributions at http://www.apache.org/dist//mina/2.0.4/ > this source distribution also contains the code in the src directory > * another source distribution > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/mina/mina-parent/2.0.4/ > Also, that's true for ftpserver. > > Now, the rationale behind the using a src directory is when users > download the binary + source distributions (which is different from > building the binary distribution from source). > If we take mina for example, we have the following folders when you > unzip both distributions: > * dist > * docs > * lib > * src > If we don't do that, the dist and lib folders would be lost amongst > the various mina-xxx subfolders containing the source for the mina > modules. Imho, it makes a lot of sense. > > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 08:34, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/2/11 6:58 PM, sebb wrote: >>> >>> The NOTICE file is wrong. >>> >>> It should start with: >>> >>> Apache MINA SSHD >>> Copyright 2xxx-2011 The Apache Software Foundation >>> >>> This product includes software developed by >>> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). >>> >>> The rest of the NOTICE file is for *required* notices of software that >>> is included in the release. >>> >>> It should not contain the license text; which should be in the LICENSE >>> file >>> >>> Have a look at the httpd ones for an example. >>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/ >>> >>> These are blockers. >>> >>> Sorry, don't have time to check for AL headers at present. >> >> There is no missing AL. I ran mvn rat:check, all is ok. >> >> I agree with the LICENSE.txt file : slf4j is missing. The MINA NOTICE.txt >> contains all what is needed, it can be a good start for the sshd licences >> file. >> >> Regarding the staging repo, I must admit I don't understand why we have a >> org/apache/sshd/apache-sshd/0.6.0/ directory and a >> org/apache/sshd/sshd/0.6.0/ repository ? >> >> Otherwise, the apache-sshd/0.6.0/ apache-sshd-0.6.0-src.tar.gz >> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemina-016/org/apache/sshd/apache-sshd/0.6.0/apache-sshd-0.6.0-src.tar.gz> >> file does not reflect the current hierarchy we have on svn, as mentionned by >> Sebastien. The src subdirectory has been created, and I don't see the >> rational behind this creation. It's not a blocker for me, but I think this >> should be fixed. >> >> I'd like to see the NOTICE.txt file fixed before the release can be >> validated, and this is for me a -1. >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Cordialement, >> Emmanuel Lécharny >> www.iktek.com >> >> > > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
