Also, I think this issue is distinct from the points Greg made about the README and RELEASE-NOTES. I think we should address those points for this release, whereas I think we should talk this one out and come up with a strategy for 1.3, but the graffle files should ship with 1.2. Any objections?
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Todd Volkert <[email protected]> wrote: > I concede that there are files we may want to keep out of releases > that are in SVN (the Eclipse files are an existing case), and for > those files, I think we should not include them in the release tag, > since one of the smoke screens that PMC members perform is checking > the contents of your source distribution against the tag. If we don't > want to include files such as the .graffle ones in releases, then > that's fine (not my druthers, but I really don't feel strongly about > it). > > However, if this list is to grow beyond just the Eclipse files, then I > *do* strongly feel that we should come up with a more organized > approach to where such files live, to simplify the release process. > This all comes on the back of me working on a Pivot release management > document that I'll check into SVN so that others can act as release > managers in the future and have a well-documented procedure to follow. > Can the Eclipse files move, or would that mess with their function? > If they can move, then maybe we create a single folder that contains > everything that we exclude from releases...? > > -T > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >>>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. >> >> We actually use the PNGs generated from the .graffle files on the Wiki - >> they aren't even used by the source code. So I think this argues pretty >> strongly for keeping the .graffle files out of the distribution. >> >> Thanks, >> Greg >> >> >> >
