On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: > It sounds like I wasn't clear enough. > > The proposal is for the following release artifacts: > > (1) A source-only tar > (2) A source+binary dependencies convenience tar > (3) A binary tar > > This is instead of: > > (1) A source-only tar > (2) A binary dependencies convenience tar > (3) A binary tar > > Hope that helps... The question is, will Roy (or anyone else) be > unwilling to vote for the first option?
Can't speak for Roy of course, but *my* interpretation is that what matters is having (1). A readily buildable source release that contains all the source code that comprises the project, that is the official release of the project by the ASF, that is the open source apache-licensed thing that is carefully inspected and tested by the (P)PMC, that is the thing that is voted on, that you point to from your website as the source release, and such and so forth. Once you have (1), there's many different acceptable approaches for (2),(3),(4), and so on. I personally feel ManifoldCF (like any other project), perhaps with help from their mentors, can decide for themselves what is the best approach. For example, I don't particularly understand the purpose/value of either version of (2) (wouldn't I just always want the binary version?), but that's fine :) cheerio, Leo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
