accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 1.5.0-RC2
Date Mon, 13 May 2013 03:15:15 GMT
Okay, so, personally, my favorite combination of options is:

Drop the assemble portion if possible, keep "source-release" and
"binary-release" as the classifiers for maven, and rename the
filenames to "-src.tar.gz" and "-bin.tar.gz" when mirroring and
publishing on the website (doesn't even require re-signing). This
keeps maven artifacts explicit, and follows conventions for download
links from the mirrors/website. While maven has a convention for
filenames, we don't have to be constrained by maven's filename
conventions when we publish on the website/mirrors.

Christopher L Tubbs II

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Drew Farris <> wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <> wrote:
>> I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because I
>> don't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official*
>> source release. However, there may be more to be done with the
>> binary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option,
>> keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2)
>> maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what is
>> published in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) not
>> holding up the release.
> Christopher, thanks for the detailed explanation.
> I believe I understand your goals regarding conventions (sticking to them),
> but something seems a little strange about the 'source-release' tarball name
> considering the Apache Maven project itself does not follow that convention
> for their artifacts (see: -- neither
> do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd.
> That said, there appear to be a number of projects that >do< use
> source-release (, so
> if it source-release.tar.gz is generally what's preferred over src.tar.gz,
> let's go with it.
> Point taken about dist vs. bin -- I'd seen dist used in previous versons of
> accumulo, but bin makes much more sense and seems to be a common convention.
> The second most common convention seems to be leaving the type off the
> tar.gz entirely, e.g: accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz - according to google,
> binary-release.tar.gz seems to be used absolutely nowhere, so accumulo would
> be certainly a trailblazer in this territory if we followed that naming
> convention.
> Both of these facts aside, the oddest thing to me is the inclusion of
> 'assemble' in the artifact name. I understand why it is there and why it is
> necessary to assemble everything in a separate maven submodule, but changing
> this should be as simple as changing the finalName parameter in the assembly
> plugin configuration, shouldn't it? If we really must include something in
> the artifact name, consider the more meaningful term 'distribution' instead
> of 'assemble'? Then we wind up with something like:
> accumulo-distribution-1.5.0-source-release.tar.gz (which is pretty
> long-winded, isn't it?)
> So, preferring the terse, I'd vote for accumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz and
> accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz or accumulo-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz

View raw message