For the php tarbals i prefer to use the format that's generated by my simple release script: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shindig/trunk/php/make-release.sh
it creates a slightly less confusing config and directory layout then the maven one does (moves features and javascript samples to the root dir of php, and merges the 2 config folders (shindig/config and shindig/php/config), which will make deploying it a bit easier for end users of it. shindig-source with both the java and php source sounds fine to me (though php doesn't know the distinction of source / binary), but it's perfectly fine to release it that way. As long as we can call the java binary package something like shindig-java-binary then, I'm completely happy with the situation :) -- Chris On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:41 AM, Ian Boston <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, > the PHP tarballs. > > If you are intending on using the maven generated ones, then its easy to > change the name or the content. > > If you want to use the build mechanism and shell script that you did, its > very easy to remove the php ones generated by maven. > > The intention was that > source was all the source (java and php) > binary was the java binary > php was the runtime image needed for php > > But its easy to create or change whats in each package. > > I will be fully back on line after 2 Jan, so I can make as many changes as > you like then.... > > Ian > > > On 18 Dec 2008, at 15:30, Chris Chabot wrote: > > Hey guys, >> >> I just wanted to ping the list and see what action items are still open >> before we can try to roll the actual release tar balls. >> >> On the PHP side I've put in some long days before we thought we would be >> releasing, so that's been ready and waiting ever since, so no reasons >> there >> to block the release that i'm aware of. >> >> As far as i'm aware much of the maven release procedure has been addressed >> (but it's all voodoo for me, so feel free to correct me), there's some >> discussion ongoing still about the release package names though we seem to >> have an majority prefering the shindig-{java,php} approach in some form or >> another; And the hard coded path problem, while it is a nice to have >> doesn't >> seem like a blocking issue to me personally with a rewrite jetty solution >> suggested. >> >> That leaves the xml output of some internal classes under discussion, >> though >> Kevin very much gave the impression there that that was not part of the >> contract of those classes, so not something we want to overhaul before we >> do >> a 1.0 release. There's the issue of the jslint output warnings, and some >> RAT >> warnings (which i send an inquery about to try to find out what the right >> approach is there, but haven't recieved a reply on yet). >> >> Most people will be taking a xmas break after the end of this week (if not >> already), so if there are substantial action items still open i guess >> we'll >> have to be realistic and shoot for jan 2009. >> >> Is there anything missing from this summary? And do we have any idea of >> when >> we can fix and/or put these issues to rest? >> >> There's a lot of people who would *love* to have a stable release they can >> work with, so lets not forget about them >> >> -- Chris >> > >
