the old thread when
> answering. I again forgot to create a new thread with a new brand message
> and not a copy from the old thread. Also when answering you can remove "was
> [Re: Should we do binary releases?]" in the subject, thanks!]
>
>
> Hi Pierre,
>
> You did not get a
[PS to ALL: please forget the previous same message in the old thread when answering. I again forgot to create a new thread with a new brand message
and not a copy from the old thread. Also when answering you can remove "was [Re: Should we do binary releases?]" in the subject, tha
Hi Pierre,
You did not get a clear answer about LoadDefault here. Actually I think you got
at least one from Taher elsewhere but I miss it.
Anyway, I answer only to this part ("LoadDefault vs LoadDemo") inline below.
Le 26/08/2016 à 18:27, Pierre Smits a écrit :
[snip]
Why should we consider
Done
Jacques
Le 30/08/2016 à 08:09, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
This is Shifting the subject from "should we do binary releases" to "How to
deploy OFBiz without Gradle". Although this has been discussed extensively
if you still want to discuss it I suggest to start
This is Shifting the subject from "should we do binary releases" to "How to
deploy OFBiz without Gradle". Although this has been discussed extensively
if you still want to discuss it I suggest to start a new thread instead of
changing the subject.
On Aug 30, 2016 8:56
1849Qpi0+Ca0jc2QWQBQfRdZ
ncw...@mail.gmail.com%3e
<>
BTW from this complete answer it seems not recommended to release
binaries
though they can also be done by a 3rd party (ie not endorsed by the ASF)
On a different but relevant note, why do we want binary releases in the
first place? What is t
Hi all, Taher,
That some projects are sporting convenience downloads for their potential
adopters (even if the project is as young as 3 months old) goes to show how
mature they are with respect to them (the adopters) an optimal experience.
I applaud them. Our project is nearing its 10th
Hi Pierre, Everyone
This was a long post, but I'll try to summarize your points to reply to
them:
1- Projects provide these convenience downloads as a sign of maturity
2- The binary package provide an easy to run product which drives adoption
with a "Just 1 click/ statement,"
3- Other ASF
Before I answer the question that Jacques raised ( rephrased into: Should
we generate binary packages aka zip files of our source releases as a
convenience to our potential and existing adopters?), I will give my take
on why I believe projects do provide those to the broader audience.
Projects
Le 25/08/2016 à 13:16, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
Glad you got the workarounds docs :)
What do you mean by "your servers cannot connect to the Internet (but
Internet can connect to them)"? Is that a DMZ, .iptables, port blocking, or
what exactly? Sounds like what you're saying is not (no
we want binary releases
in the
first place? What is the purpose?
The question of this thread is "Should we do binary releases?"
It seems more and more to me that we should neglect them, notably for
security reasons.
Note though that from my OWASP dependency checks (OWAPS-DC), so far
Grad
ues Le Roux <
>>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Le 24/08/2016 à 23:15, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure how am I supposed to understand it? To me it see
the
first place? What is the purpose?
The question of this thread is "Should we do binary releases?"
It seems more and more to me that we should neglect them, notably for
security reasons.
Note though that from my OWASP dependency checks (OWAPS-DC), so far
Gradle does not gu
t;>> that
>>>> represent the binary form of YOUR code.
>>>>
>>>> Eventually it boils down to this
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
>>> 201606.mbox/%3cCAAS6=7gVXGHqeKVeFV_r1849Qpi0+Ca0jc2QWQBQfRdZ
>>> ncw
releases in the
first place? What is the purpose?
The question of this thread is "Should we do binary releases?"
It seems more and more to me that we should neglect them, notably for
security reasons.
Note though that from my OWASP dependency checks (OWAPS-DC), so far
Gradle does not gu
t seems not recommended to release binaries
> though they can also be done by a 3rd party (ie not endorsed by the ASF)
>
> On a different but relevant note, why do we want binary releases in the
>> first place? What is the purpose?
>>
>
> The question of this thread is "
A couple of comments:
1) a "release" at the ASF is a "source release". It would be better, to
avoid any confusion in the future, if we name "binary packages" the
(optional) files that we could produce from a release
2) my preference would be to not issue binary packages: focusing on
publishing
W from this complete answer it seems not recommended to release binaries
though they can also be done by a 3rd party (ie not endorsed by the ASF)
On a different but relevant note, why do we want binary releases in the
first place? What is the purpose?
The question of this thread is "Should w
Hi Jacques,
I'm not sure how am I supposed to understand it? To me it seems clear ..
You cannot add binaries unless they are the result of compiling the source
code of the release you are preparing, it's written so very clearly. It
also makes sense as it is saying that you can provide binary
Taher,
Wait, either Tomcat, Ant and JMeter are doing it wrong or we don't understand
this sentence (I agree with you) or it's incomplete.
Because if you download each of their binary releases you will find in them "binary/bytecode files" which are not the "result of compiling that
version of
Hi Jacques,
The discussion we had in OFBIZ-7783 was basically around whether or not we
should have a task to copy the gradle dependencies into a certain
directory. We went through many discussions, the last one being that this
task might be needed for binary releases.
However, if you look at the
Hi,
At https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7783 we recently had a
discussion with Taher about doing or not binary releases.
This is how the ASF defines a binary release
(http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what)
22 matches
Mail list logo
