In reading some more of the thread, I think we may have two topics going on (sorry if I caused the split).
I think that these are: Thread 1: Core, Colt and other sub-modules should be distributed as (binary) jars +1 from me on this. I didn't imagine that this might be controversial at all so I didn't even think originally that this might be under discussion. Thread 2: The source distro should have all dependent jars included in it -1 from me on this unless we can have a slimmer source jar as well. On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I think that there is a significant advantage to having a small source > > download. > > > > +1 here. I don't feel that svn access to the sources is sufficient. > > > > - source plus jars > > > > - binary > > > > I'm not certain that we need both binary and source plus jars, but that > might be my misunderstanding of the difference between the two. Assuming > that binary is a subset of source plus jars (without sources), I'd vote for > a source plus jars alternative and be done with it. I doubt that the source > would add so much size to the distribution as to cause problems. -- Ted Dunning, CTO DeepDyve
