On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > I don't think we need to stop producing and publishing source code > tarballs in the Go case, just because it's not the primary way people > consume the code. Publication of the source code is something we need to > do as part of the open source license we use, and some still consider > tarball publication to be a clearer form of "publication" than keeping a > git server up.
I'll buy that. Overall, I don't think we are doing anything today that is incompatible with what I see golang needing. This is really a side-issue that I have heard you, and maybe others, ask about in general, so I included it to affirm the golang case. Making changes to the general case is separate in my mind, but this may be a good time to consider it in parallel since we're thinking about these things again in detail. > Beyond the source though, one question is whether we should build, sign > and distribute binary artifacts (compiled code), or if tagging a source > repo (and producing a source code tarball) is sufficient. And if we do > distribute binaries, would we only do that for some deliverables (like > the top ones that are supposed to be directly used by users) or for > everything ? I am not in favor of distributing binaries as a matter of course, although from a purely selfish point of view I want the ability to do that for a future CLI binary for Windows. That CLI doesn't exist yet, and I do not see another reason (yet?) to include this in the initial task list. dt -- Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev