There is no requirement that you release everything in your repository as part of a release. If you generate JPGs based on PhotoShop files (or Graffle), you don't have to release the psd's (or graffle files) - unless the build to create your release doesn't work without those source files.
There is nothing wrong with a separate docs-source/ part in your repository that is used for source images, and only including the generated images in your src tree of your release. Martijn On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Todd Volkert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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). > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
