A couple of comments: 1) a "release" at the ASF is a "source release". It would be better, to avoid any confusion in the future, if we name "binary packages" the (optional) files that we could produce from a release
2) my preference would be to not issue binary packages: focusing on publishing good (source) releases is already a challenging effort for this community; in the future, if a large set of users will start to ask for them, we could revisit this discussion Just my 2 cents Jacopo On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Hi, > > At https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7783 we recently had a > discussion with Taher about doing or not binary releases. > > This is how the ASF defines a binary release ( > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what) > > <<All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make > changes to the software being released. In some cases, binary/bytecode > packages are also produced as a convenience to users that might not have > the appropriate tools to build a compiled version of the source. In all > such cases, the binary/bytecode package must have the same version number > as the source release and may only add binary/bytecode files that are the > result of compiling that version of the source code release.>> > > So the question is simple (not the answer, you need to think ahead): do we > want to do binary releases? It comes with some burden, does it worth it? No > needs to rush an answer :) > > If you want more information you can already look at the conversation we > had Pierre, Taher and I at OFBIZ-7783 > > Thanks > > Jacques > > >
