--- Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
> >
> > One compromise may be to use a separate CVS only
> for binaries, with the
> > latest "released" version of each product.
> >
> > Users will have to check out the project cvs and
> the common binaries CVS.
> >
> > Benefits over checking in binaries in all
> projects:
> > - only pristine sources in all projects ( except
> the binary tree )
> > - consistent behavior and location for the
> binaries for all projects
> using
> > the binary tree
> > - less duplication and space ( and download time )
> > - a simple way to get the latest stable release
> for all jars ( a cvs
> > update will also get only what's changed, instead
> of requiring to
> > download and install x different tar.gz files )
>
> +1
>
> Perhaps we could even get a change into ant.bat and
> ant.sh to "
> -Djakarta.home=$JAKARTA_HOME".
>
> [big ol' snip]
A common binary repository sounds like the way to go.
There's no strict need for everbody to buy into it
though. If, for some reason, a new release of a JAR
breaks a particular subproject, that subproject can
always check in the required version of a binary
locally. Or ignore the common repository and check
everything in locally, if they're dead set against the
idea. To me, a common repository sounds like a lot
less work for the individual subproject owners, but
Jakarta members are nothing if not peculiar.
Of course, there are administrative details to
consider. I would be very wary of putting anything
approaching a beta release in the common repository.
We would need some ground rules to make sure that
didn't happen.
- Morgan
=====
Morgan Delagrange
Britannica.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
