Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4544C0B7.1010301@opensource.lk>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:54:47 +0500
From: Eran Chinthaka <chinthaka@opensource.lk>
Reply-To: chinthaka@opensource.lk
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Axis2] Getting rid of release_docs/maven_scripts/maven-std.xml
References: <e9115cfd0610290556y7fcc1fe3ydc2003cdb66ac040@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e9115cfd0610290556y7fcc1fe3ydc2003cdb66ac040@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="------------enig4A76247F633392D636C5A650"

--------------enig4A76247F633392D636C5A650
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Thilina,

Thilina Gunarathne wrote:
> Hi all,
> Currently we are maintaining a separate maven.xml at
> release_docs/maven_scripts/maven-std.xml to include in the source
> distribution.

We created separate maven scripts as earlier we have two distros. And
yes, if we ship only one source distro we might use the main maven.xml.

While I agree with your claim about the problems of maintaining two
versions of the same resource, please think about user experience, as
that is more important than anything. As you also have noticed, the main
script contains goals which can not be run against the source release.
And when some goals that will be used with the source may also not work
due to the reactor issue.

Eventhough it is cumbersome to maintain two scripts, we have no option
than to release the best script we have and it should not give any
problems. This means we need to maintain a separate version of the
maven.xml, as of now and the we have to make sure the released version
is up-to-date.

Thinking about the end user experience I'm -1 on releasing the maven.xml
we use during development and +1 for maintaining a new one. This is why
we need to test releases properly before releasing them.

> Also also we need
> to ship the contents of the legal folder with the source distribution,
> which I personally think is a must..


I can't figure out why you want to ship legal folder with the source
release. Please read the respective licenses. IIRC, we have to include
the licenses, only if we are re-distributing them. Since we are not
shipping jars with our source release, there is no necessity to include
the licenses in it. But you might want to add an entry to the README.txt.=


Just check with Tomcat source release. And they don't ship other
licenses with the source release.

You might wanna read this (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html).

Dims, please correct me if I'm wrong.

- Chinthaka


--------------enig4A76247F633392D636C5A650
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFRMC6jON2uBzUhh8RAnjVAKCUUIuFcfRduRJcMwP95cB0QOVfTwCfTYOq
IwujD0APQ45BNpRf+1QY2q0=
=7sxU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4A76247F633392D636C5A650--