Schaefer
> wrote:
> > - Original Message
> >
> >> From: Doug Cutting
> >> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Wed, August 18, 2010 6:44:03 PM
> >> Subject: Re: bootstrap.sh in tarballs
> >>
> >> On 08/18/2010 03:33 P
se an old autoconf is there. e.g. see THRIFT-646.
>
>
> On 8/18/2010 1:59 PM, David Reiss wrote:
>
>> +1. This should be a 1-line change to Makefile.am.
>>
>> From: Mark Slee [ms...@facebook.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday
gust 18, 2010 6:44:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: bootstrap.sh in tarballs
>>
>> On 08/18/2010 03:33 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> > Nononono Doug. What they're discussing is perfectly ok and is done
>> > in other projects. bootstrap.sh is a pre-configuration script no
On 08/18/2010 03:54 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
But my main attitude is let's not sweat the small stuff. If there's
good reason not to release the script, and there seems to be, then
let's not release it. It's causing more confusion than it's worth.
+1
I hope you didn't feel I was sweating small
I think it's pretty clearly non-source. It's a build helper that is
unnecessary in release tarballs.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 08/18/2010 12:56 PM, Bryan Duxbury wrote:
>
>> What do you guys think of omitting bootstrap.sh from release tarballs?
>>
>
> The full sou
- Original Message
> From: Doug Cutting
> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 18, 2010 6:44:03 PM
> Subject: Re: bootstrap.sh in tarballs
>
> On 08/18/2010 03:33 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Nononono Doug. What they're discussing is pe
From: Mark Slee [ms...@facebook.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:44 PM
To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: bootstrap.sh in tarballs
Ack, I misread your original proposal. I thought you meant omitting the *run*
of bootstrap.sh, so that people would run
On 08/18/2010 03:33 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Nononono Doug. What they're discussing is perfectly ok and is done
in other projects. bootstrap.sh is a pre-configuration script not
actual thrift source.
That's why I asked whether it was source code. If it's not considered
such, then it shouldn'
- Original Message
> From: Doug Cutting
> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 18, 2010 6:30:56 PM
> Subject: Re: bootstrap.sh in tarballs
>
> On 08/18/2010 12:56 PM, Bryan Duxbury wrote:
> > What do you guys think of omitting bootstrap.s
On 08/18/2010 12:56 PM, Bryan Duxbury wrote:
What do you guys think of omitting bootstrap.sh from release tarballs?
The full source code of a project should be the primary release
artifact. Is bootstrap.sh not project source code?
I wonder if Thrift might instead be better of releasing mult
+1. This should be a 1-line change to Makefile.am.
From: Mark Slee [ms...@facebook.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:44 PM
To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: bootstrap.sh in tarballs
Ack, I misread your original proposal. I thought you
xbury [mailto:br...@rapleaf.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:42 PM
To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: bootstrap.sh in tarballs
I guess I'm not really sure what the advantage of packaging it at all is.
When would a user *ever* use it when downloading a tarball?
On Wed, Aug 1
ing. But seems nice not to
> require it.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Molinaro [mailto:antho...@alumni.caltech.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:33 PM
> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: bootstrap.sh in tarballs
>
> +1, you'll
+1 sounds good
Quoting Bruce Lowekamp :
+1
On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Bryan Duxbury wrote:
What do you guys think of omitting bootstrap.sh from release tarballs?
People seem super eager to run it, and it breaks things. If we didn't
include it, then at least they'd *know* they can't run i
wrong when people run bootstrap.sh,
and that definitely warrants fixing. But seems nice not to require it.
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Molinaro [mailto:antho...@alumni.caltech.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:33 PM
To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: boots
+1, you'll also want to get rid of cleanup.sh as that is also misleading
and if you run it, you'd have to bootstrap to get back to a buildable
thrift.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:56:12PM -0700, Bryan Duxbury wrote:
> What do you guys think of omitting bootstrap.sh from release tarballs?
> People se
+1
We omit similar scripts in our Subversion release.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 16:19, Bruce Lowekamp wrote:
> +1
>
> On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Bryan Duxbury wrote:
>
>> What do you guys think of omitting bootstrap.sh from release tarballs?
>> People seem super eager to run it, and it breaks t
+1
On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Bryan Duxbury wrote:
> What do you guys think of omitting bootstrap.sh from release tarballs?
> People seem super eager to run it, and it breaks things. If we didn't
> include it, then at least they'd *know* they can't run it.
+1 It's very tempting
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Bryan Duxbury wrote:
> What do you guys think of omitting bootstrap.sh from release tarballs?
> People seem super eager to run it, and it breaks things. If we didn't
> include it, then at least they'd *know* they can't run it.
>
What do you guys think of omitting bootstrap.sh from release tarballs?
People seem super eager to run it, and it breaks things. If we didn't
include it, then at least they'd *know* they can't run it.
20 matches
Mail list logo
