accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed binary packaging changes
Date Fri, 01 Jul 2016 16:07:56 GMT
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Targeting for 2.0, including updates in the README, and having mean for
>> helping
>>  the downstream user find the appropriate licensing information makes me
>> much
>> more comfortable with this.
>>
>> I have to ask though, why not just do source only releases? Or source
>>
>
> Not having the binary release would suck.  Its nice to be able to easily
> test the latest version of Accumulo on a cluster.  Would not be able to
> easily run our own cluster test suites against release candidates.
>
>

We don't need to have artifacts in the release to do this though. We
could have a nightly build job (for use on dev@accumulo) that makes
the binary artifacts needed. That job can take a git ref and default
to HEAD. if we want to grab e.g. release candidates to deploy we could
then use it.

If these test clusters are going to have to run some script to pull
down 3rd party jars, what's the difference in having that script
either build the accumulo jars or download them from a jenkins job?

-- 
busbey

Mime
View raw message