On 11/14/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 00:56 +0530, Asankha C. Perera wrote:
> > Ant
> >
> > As you may have noticed, I started to clean up the svn and build.. and
> > just now checked in a working base m2 build in parallel to the m1
> > build. (it is much faster than m1.. would be great to check if you are
> > able to run it though)
> >
> > As Paul has also agreed, I will make the suggested improvements as
> > follows:
> >
> > Synapse distribution
> > * Binary - synapse-0.90-incubating.bin.zip
> > - will extract to synapse-0.90
> >
> > * Source - synapse-0.90-incubating.src.zip
> > - will extract to synapse-src-0.90
>
> No that's not right IMO: The src distro should just extra into
> synapse-0.90/src/*. That's how pretty much every package works
Not really, at least not at apache. Struts, tomcat, (most of) jakarta
commons, for example, all still upack to separate -src top levels. I
am curious where this has been discussed and what the pros and cons
are. As a developer, keeping the distros separate makes release
checking a tad easier and as a user it is a little more convenient if
you want to maintain a working binary install while hacking on a
separate source distro.
In any case, embedding the release number in both artifact names and
unpack directories is a best practice. I know there are also special
rules about the "incubator" word ;-). If you do decide to go the
separate -src route, I think it is better to have -src last, i.e.,
synapse-0.90-src, rather than synapse-src-0.90. My 0.90 c.
Phil
This comes up quite often on the incubator general mailing list, here's a couple of emails from a recent thread [1] [2]. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consensus on a best practice approach yet, AFAICT r obert burrell donkin likes the way I've proposed above, and as he does a lot of the reviewing of the incubator releases it seemed easiest to try to keep him happy :)
The main complaint is when the distros aren't consistent or just unpack into the current directory or don't include the release number, so its not going to be a problem to change to the way Sanjiva suggests and we could say we're being consistent with the WS project approach.
...ant
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=116066602215579&w=2
[2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=116068487126150&w=2
