Re: Packaging our releases
Martijn Dashorst wrote: Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files, [...] Wheee, this is almost getting religious. :) Maven 2 users just, errr, use Maven 2. :) So for the others, I'd have thought it simplest to have a single zip/tgz download containing the wicket sub-project JARs plus all their deps. You can easily automate this using the mvn assembly plug-in. Maven 2 will generate a nice dependencies report, which we should probably stick up somewhere, so if someone is not using Maven 2 and wants the smallest set of dependency libraries, they don't need to go hunting around to work out what they need. -1 on all wicket sub-projects wrapped into single JAR. Spring started out this way and has now fragmented into sub-project JARs, and they wish they'd done it like that from the start. Most people will only use wicket and wicket-extensions. (I'd also suggest renaming wicket to wicket-core, as it makes it more obvious there are other modules available, but whatever.) Al
Re: Packaging our releases
* Ingo Adler: I'm not using Maven. I use Ant and Ivy. Me too. And I'd love to see Wicket using the successful combo, but this is not (yet) the case of others[1]. I like the wicket-all idea. One version - one distribution - one download. First step: I create (or copy) an IntelliJ project with modules over the extracted distribution. So I can navigate through the source, the samples and the rest. The web site and the docs are not important. But I don't mind. If the projects are nicely structured I can even compile and start the sample applications without any hassle. I use this project to lookup how samples work, for api documentation and to look how the internals are implemented. Second step: I copy all the jar files I need to my repository to update my projects. The wicket-all distribution is a nice addition to people who want to get an overview over the current release quickly without getting into the details of the project's structures (subprojects and source/jar and distribution jars) in the maven repositories. +1. We need to have both the artifacts deployed to a central repository (for the Maven or Ivy users that already know Wicket), and the all-in-one package for the beginner to become acquainted with Wicket. Cheers, -- Jean-Baptiste Quenot aka John Banana Qwerty http://caraldi.com/jbq/ [1] http://www.nabble.com/Ant-%2B-Ivy-tf2667504.html#a7438702
Re: Packaging our releases
On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files, one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This means that when you download wicket-1.2.4.zip, wicket-spring-1.2.4.zip and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.zip, you will download wicket-1.2.4.jar 3 times, wicket-spring-1.2.4 2 times and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.jar 1 time. - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars I prefer the wicket-all approach, and I don't agree with the observation that nearly all our users use Maven; in my experience, it's just the opposite: really a few users use maven, and it'd be much easier for them to have a single zip file. -- filippo
Re: Packaging our releases
On 1/23/07, Filippo Diotalevi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files, one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This means that when you download wicket-1.2.4.zip, wicket-spring-1.2.4.zip and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.zip, you will download wicket-1.2.4.jar 3 times, wicket-spring-1.2.4 2 times and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.jar 1 time. - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars I prefer the wicket-all approach, and I don't agree with the observation that nearly all our users use Maven; in my experience, it's just the opposite: really a few users use maven, and it'd be much easier for them to have a single zip file. I would say that I'm as much a user as anyone else (still using 1.2.2 @ work, shame on me :). But we only use wicket core and some selfcompiled stuff projects. I don't see much idea in the all package because I wouldn't use all of them or even half. Now that I think of it I think it makes sense to have a maven based stripped down source dist, but let the binary dist be without maven and including the dependencies. What do you need the pom for in a binary dist? Frank
Re: Packaging our releases
fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available to you from the maven repo? http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/ rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download the parts that you need -igor On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martijn Dashorst wrote: Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The distributions are made for you. - split zips into source and binary distributions, going with the default maven assemblies +1 - remove site docs from distributions, only include a readme, the docs can be found online (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKETxSITE) +1 - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars +0 - add source-jar/javadoc-jar to the zips (currently left out) +10 I don't like maven (even though I use it from time to time), and I am sure not going to let Maven touch my Eclipse files. Perhaps in 3 years time. Questions: - do we need to support ant builds for the source distribution? Not for me. - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary distribution You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found this very convenient. Regards, Erik. -- Erik van Oosten http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: Packaging our releases
Hi Igor, Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad experiences with it. Including it screwing up my eclipse config files. I don't like it when I have to read a whole book for something simple as building (well, perhaps it is not so simple anymore :( ). - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary distribution You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found this very convenient. Just an option. If is too much effort, the wicket core will suffer. So in that case, I could not care less :) Building the src jars is another matter. Not everybody can/will do so. Regards, Erik. Igor Vaynberg wrote: fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available to you from the maven repo? http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/ rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download the parts that you need -igor -- Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: Packaging our releases
I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with most projects unfortunately). Eelco On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Igor, Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad experiences with it. Including it screwing up my eclipse config files. I don't like it when I have to read a whole book for something simple as building (well, perhaps it is not so simple anymore :( ). - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary distribution You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found this very convenient. Just an option. If is too much effort, the wicket core will suffer. So in that case, I could not care less :) Building the src jars is another matter. Not everybody can/will do so. Regards, Erik. Igor Vaynberg wrote: fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available to you from the maven repo? http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/ rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download the parts that you need -igor -- Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: Packaging our releases
well, i dont really see the difference you can either a) go to our website download a zip extract the zip put the bin jar into your project put the src/javadoc jar into your project or b) go to our website click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that into your project click the link to src/javadoc jar that poitnts to the maven repo and save that into your project so what does the zip really get you that two links to the maven repo dont? you dont have to use maven to download from the maven repo. -igor On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with most projects unfortunately). Eelco On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Igor, Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad experiences with it. Including it screwing up my eclipse config files. I don't like it when I have to read a whole book for something simple as building (well, perhaps it is not so simple anymore :( ). - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary distribution You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found this very convenient. Just an option. If is too much effort, the wicket core will suffer. So in that case, I could not care less :) Building the src jars is another matter. Not everybody can/will do so. Regards, Erik. Igor Vaynberg wrote: fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available to you from the maven repo? http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/ rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download the parts that you need -igor -- Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: Packaging our releases
if you want dependencies why not download quickstart? that zip has all the deps. do you expect wicket-spring.zip to contain spring.jar? -igor On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Igor, It seems like you're mixing two things: the zip-with-dependencies and the src jars. The first is for convenience only and is not so important. Especially when it is hard to create. Please forget about this one. The second can be hard to build and is in my view (and Eelco's) highly desirable. Of course as a simple user I am totally dependent on what you are willing to make. Unfortunately I can only contribute in small ways. Regards, Erik. Igor Vaynberg wrote: well, i dont really see the difference you can either a) go to our website download a zip extract the zip put the bin jar into your project put the src/javadoc jar into your project or b) go to our website click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that into your project click the link to src/javadoc jar that poitnts to the maven repo and save that into your project so what does the zip really get you that two links to the maven repo dont? you dont have to use maven to download from the maven repo. -igor On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with most projects unfortunately). Eelco -- Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: Packaging our releases
Currently it does. And yes,when I download a project I typically expect it to work out of the box, no strings attached. I really hate having to hunt down dependencies which are poorly documented. I also hate it when projects include dependencies without the version info in the filename (some include a readme with the version numbers, but that usually is out of date). Since we are using and promoting (?) the usage of maven, and even though it has its flaws, it does induce some very good practices. If/when we are going to use the standard/default maven supplied templates, then we will have the following distributions readily available: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/descriptor-refs.html Most interesting IMO: - src - bin - project Martijn On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if you want dependencies why not download quickstart? that zip has all the deps. do you expect wicket-spring.zip to contain spring.jar? -igor On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Igor, It seems like you're mixing two things: the zip-with-dependencies and the src jars. The first is for convenience only and is not so important. Especially when it is hard to create. Please forget about this one. The second can be hard to build and is in my view (and Eelco's) highly desirable. Of course as a simple user I am totally dependent on what you are willing to make. Unfortunately I can only contribute in small ways. Regards, Erik. Igor Vaynberg wrote: well, i dont really see the difference you can either a) go to our website download a zip extract the zip put the bin jar into your project put the src/javadoc jar into your project or b) go to our website click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that into your project click the link to src/javadoc jar that poitnts to the maven repo and save that into your project so what does the zip really get you that two links to the maven repo dont? you dont have to use maven to download from the maven repo. -igor On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with most projects unfortunately). Eelco -- Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/ -- Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
Re: Packaging our releases
Yeah you can, and the fact that we upload with src jars is a good thing. However, I don't expect every user to know where to find those src files, and it sure is a lot easier to just unpack them in link them to your IDE of choice directly. Eelco On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, i dont really see the difference you can either a) go to our website download a zip extract the zip put the bin jar into your project put the src/javadoc jar into your project or b) go to our website click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that into your project click the link to src/javadoc jar that poitnts to the maven repo and save that into your project so what does the zip really get you that two links to the maven repo dont? you dont have to use maven to download from the maven repo. -igor On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with most projects unfortunately). Eelco On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Igor, Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad experiences with it. Including it screwing up my eclipse config files. I don't like it when I have to read a whole book for something simple as building (well, perhaps it is not so simple anymore :( ). - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary distribution You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found this very convenient. Just an option. If is too much effort, the wicket core will suffer. So in that case, I could not care less :) Building the src jars is another matter. Not everybody can/will do so. Regards, Erik. Igor Vaynberg wrote: fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available to you from the maven repo? http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/ rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download the parts that you need -igor -- Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: Packaging our releases
On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah you can, and the fact that we upload with src jars is a good thing. However, I don't expect every user to know where to find those src files, neither do i, thats why we link to them from our website! -igor and it sure is a lot easier to just unpack them in link them to your IDE of choice directly. Eelco On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, i dont really see the difference you can either a) go to our website download a zip extract the zip put the bin jar into your project put the src/javadoc jar into your project or b) go to our website click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that into your project click the link to src/javadoc jar that poitnts to the maven repo and save that into your project so what does the zip really get you that two links to the maven repo dont? you dont have to use maven to download from the maven repo. -igor On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with most projects unfortunately). Eelco On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Igor, Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad experiences with it. Including it screwing up my eclipse config files. I don't like it when I have to read a whole book for something simple as building (well, perhaps it is not so simple anymore :( ). - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary distribution You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found this very convenient. Just an option. If is too much effort, the wicket core will suffer. So in that case, I could not care less :) Building the src jars is another matter. Not everybody can/will do so. Regards, Erik. Igor Vaynberg wrote: fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available to you from the maven repo? http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/ rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download the parts that you need -igor -- Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: Packaging our releases
On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If/when we are going to use the standard/default maven supplied templates, then we will have the following distributions readily available: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/descriptor-refs.html why arent we already? -igor
Re: Packaging our releases
but there is no longer the pain of sf.net releases! since all our future (save 1.2.5) will be asf where you just drop files into an ftp server. so if we use default maven packaging it will remove that burden from you. -igor On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because I like our current assembly: source and binary in one package per project. Splitting things up into src/bin is really a pain with the sf.net file release system. Doubling the number of artifacts would increase the release manager's workload considerably (twice the number of files to upload, twice the agony of attaching files to a release package, twice the agony of updating the file information). The reason for this thread is to see what can be done to make it more easy in the future. Not for our current sf.net releases (they will remain the same). Martijn On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If/when we are going to use the standard/default maven supplied templates, then we will have the following distributions readily available: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/descriptor-refs.html why arent we already? -igor -- Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
Re: Packaging our releases
That is why I 'polled' the masses: to find out if anyone is attached to our current packaging. Fortunately the @dev subscribers aren't attached to the current packaging, so we can move to the default assemblies. Martijn On 1/24/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but there is no longer the pain of sf.net releases! since all our future (save 1.2.5) will be asf where you just drop files into an ftp server. so if we use default maven packaging it will remove that burden from you. -igor On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because I like our current assembly: source and binary in one package per project. Splitting things up into src/bin is really a pain with the sf.net file release system. Doubling the number of artifacts would increase the release manager's workload considerably (twice the number of files to upload, twice the agony of attaching files to a release package, twice the agony of updating the file information). The reason for this thread is to see what can be done to make it more easy in the future. Not for our current sf.net releases (they will remain the same). Martijn On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If/when we are going to use the standard/default maven supplied templates, then we will have the following distributions readily available: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/descriptor-refs.html why arent we already? -igor -- Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org -- Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
Re: Packaging our releases
On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - split zips into source and binary distributions, going with the default maven assemblies +1 - remove site docs from distributions, only include a readme, the docs can be found online (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKETxSITE) +1 - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars -1 this day and age people will mostly use maven, so why even have zips? can we not simply post the jars produced by maven on our site and into apache's snapshot repo have anstructions on our page for adding the necessary deps into pom.xml - add source-jar/javadoc-jar to the zips (currently left out) -1 mvn eclipse:eclipse -DdownloadSources=true or get them yourself from the maven repo or our site Questions: - do we need to support ant builds for the source distribution? no, we use maven2. maybe have an example ant on our wiki and let users fix it when its broken. - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary distribution no, all dependencies are easily available through the maven repo or our site for wicket deps - do we like our current distributions, so no change is necessary? no, lets streamline it and let maven do more work for us -igor
Re: Packaging our releases
+1 to Igor's response Use maven conventions as much as possible. Leave the distributions bare bones and get all extra artifacts (source, javadoc) in the maven repository. On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The distributions are made for you. Martijn -- Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
Re: Packaging our releases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 I just use either maven or ant+maven tasks to dl the jars. I hardly dl the distro bundles at all. Martijn Dashorst wrote: Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The distributions are made for you. Martijn - -- Justin Lee http://www.antwerkz.com AIM : evan chooly Skype : evanchooly -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin) iD8DBQFFtUPrJnQfEGuJ90MRAxPvAKDNcttJM9s8HnMQi5T5dogucabUEwCgliuS tlvh4COP9OaDS+0z0+QGb+Y= =AtBX -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Packaging our releases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 I just hit reply... Igor Vaynberg wrote: maybe you shouldve posted this to @user? -gior On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The distributions are made for you. Martijn -- Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org - -- Justin Lee http://www.antwerkz.com AIM : evan chooly Skype : evanchooly -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin) iD8DBQFFtUZKJnQfEGuJ90MRA35JAJwJjiqVQSpdrh1xuMQ8etH7xpwwbgCbB/8a XNs4Uu5IJoNJYM+ZOBgSMl8= =ko0K -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Packaging our releases
that was meant for martijn not you -igor On 1/22/07, Justin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 I just hit reply... Igor Vaynberg wrote: maybe you shouldve posted this to @user? -gior On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The distributions are made for you. Martijn -- Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org - -- Justin Lee http://www.antwerkz.com AIM : evan chooly Skype : evanchooly -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin) iD8DBQFFtUZKJnQfEGuJ90MRA35JAJwJjiqVQSpdrh1xuMQ8etH7xpwwbgCbB/8a XNs4Uu5IJoNJYM+ZOBgSMl8= =ko0K -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Packaging our releases
Hi. Answers right after the questions. On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files, one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This means that when you download wicket-1.2.4.zip, wicket-spring-1.2.4.zip and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.zip, you will download wicket-1.2.4.jar 3 times, wicket-spring-1.2.4 2 times and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.jar 1 time. Also, each release contains the generated website. Now the only two websites that are actually worth something are: - the main wicket distribution, as it contains the examples. - the wicket-quickstart distribution, as it contains the guides for the 3 ide's Recently, Eelco asked the question, what will improve our release process? Part of the improvement could come from streamlining the contents of our zips. Some options I see (I'm not +1, just stating them): - split zips into source and binary distributions, going with the default maven assemblies + 1 default maven assemblies. - remove site docs from distributions, only include a readme, the docs can be found online (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKETxSITE) +1 - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars +1 if it doesn't hurt to much to make it work. - add source-jar/javadoc-jar to the zips (currently left out) -1 javadoc only. Questions: - do we need to support ant builds for the source distribution? - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary distribution -1 - do we like our current distributions, so no change is necessary? could be improved as stated. WDYT? Martijn -- Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
