Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-accumulo-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 034ACFFB0 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 14:30:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 43517 invoked by uid 500); 13 May 2013 13:30:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-user-archive@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 43325 invoked by uid 500); 13 May 2013 13:30:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@accumulo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 43311 invoked by uid 99); 13 May 2013 13:30:02 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 May 2013 13:30:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-vb0-f47.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username drew, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 May 2013 13:30:02 +0000 Received: by mail-vb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x14so5137050vbb.20 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 06:30:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=ngQSEP2tYyAEFokb250OybkEkQdc1rOEiJF2XHAXwi8=; b=AuwwnMEZlbi9DJiC4GyVQqpFmtsQwrO+pHaiqMlsMZlfNnPdwBppT/W5D0a9kCBJo4 uPOanvX67HzeYgZRq8/FF8H88mAe18XrCCOLwlfHSiCxSJVivx9PvLcp+e1xNQ6JBMln NiQM7VS1UaFHwpEBLcb/tkNk5L1RWtSgbSZhCJKzPuRuEKOU6e160VTGBhTwPFZTKLwm 0KDnhErfDrM9f1MgTqyKiqqWNO0INKQS/qz7tPQnsOig4GF/RK976PoYWa3iLCU8VWsw brXFsV9VjVUlaTlsY2i9ZS87k9dS9JM/kUBGTVN/ReLJk3TSHOVDwPAoAmOIqM51xjFM PBBg== X-Received: by 10.59.6.101 with SMTP id ct5mr18200022ved.8.1368451800999; Mon, 13 May 2013 06:30:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.116.166 with HTTP; Mon, 13 May 2013 06:29:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Drew Farris Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 09:29:40 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [VOTE] 1.5.0-RC2 To: user@accumulo.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0ecf67de6a004dc99831a --047d7bf0ecf67de6a004dc99831a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 This sounds perfect to me. Thanks for hashing this out. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Christopher wrote: > 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 > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > 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: http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi) -- > neither > > do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd. > > > > That said, there appear to be a number of projects that >do< use > > source-release (https://www.google.com/search?q=source-release.tar.gz), > 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 > > > > > > > --047d7bf0ecf67de6a004dc99831a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 This sounds perfect to me. Thanks for hashing this out.

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
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
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Drew Farris <drew@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> 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: http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi) -- neither
> do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd.
>
> That said, there appear to be a number of projects that >do< use
> source-release (https://www.google.com/search?q=source-release.tar.gz), 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
>
>
>

--047d7bf0ecf67de6a004dc99831a--