Can you clarify what you're suggesting? It sounds as if you want to re-create a new release candidate with some adjustments made, which is totally fine, but it contradicts your +1 vote, as you're voting on this release candidate. Thus, I'm confused.
>>> - Reviewed decompressed artifact contents: >>> - Should we be including the .graffle files (in project/design/) in the >>> source >>> distribution? I'd say no, since they are documentation, and we don't >>> have any >>> way to attach copyright info to them. >> >>In general, we should include the entire SVN contents in the source >>tree, so I'd say yes we should include them. We don't have any way to >>attach copyright info to JPGs, yet we (and other projects) include >>them. > > But we don't include any other documentation in our source distribution. I'd > expect it to be omitted since it is not source and not required to compile or > run the source. If we want to mirror SVN as closely as possible, I'd suggest > that we remove it from the tag or remove it from SVN altogether. The release should mirror SVN as closely as possible, if for no other reason than the fact that we need an easily reproducible, maintainable, and documentable release procedure. It's also in keeping with Apache's recommendations AFAIK. My personal preference is to include them, since if we had a graphic designer start submitting mock-ups to SVN, I'd want to include those in our source distribution as well. But if we think that for some reason they should be excluded, then we should remove them from SVN. What's the strong reason for excluding them though? It's not licensing, since we created them. And as for it being documentation, so are the Javadoc comments in our source code and the palette images that go along with the Javadoc (and users can generate Javadocs from the source distribution).
