I had forged ahead with the single archive release format in the assumption that it was a cleaner approach than having separate archives. To me, it looks cluttered to have:
* pivot-1.1-incubating.tar.gz * pivot-1.1-incubating.tar.gz.asc * pivot-1.1-incubating.tar.gz.md5 * pivot-1.1-incubating.tar.gz.sha * pivot-1.1-incubating-src.tar.gz * pivot-1.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.asc * pivot-1.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.md5 * pivot-1.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.sha * pivot-1.1-incubating-doc.tar.gz * pivot-1.1-incubating-doc.tar.gz.asc * pivot-1.1-incubating-doc.tar.gz.md5 * pivot-1.1-incubating-doc.tar.gz.sha As opposed to just having one archive that contains doc, src, and lib folders within it. However, Niclas brings up the good point that the single tarball approach could be annoying to users with slow network connections. Does anyone feel strongly about this? Is it even worth voting on, or is this a non-issue? Note that we could possibly go with the two tarball approach, drop the doc archive, and the user who wants local docs could build it from src... Thoughts? -T
