commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release commons-logging 1.1.1 (take 2)
Date Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:41:13 GMT
On 19/11/2007, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> > On 11/19/07, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
> >> sebb wrote:
> > <snip/>
> >>> There does not seem to have been a final decision (or even summary) of
> >>> the e-mail thread, which is a pity. Probably ought to be on the
> >>> developer section of the commons site.
> >> Consensus was not reached, so I didn't bother writing any docs for it.
> >>
> >>> However:
> >>> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--all--What%27s-in-a-distribution--p8133008.html
> >>> does ask for the whole of SVN to be included.
> >>>
> >>> AFAICS, only one message supported having a single combined archive;
> >>> at least one other message referred to the need to keep archive sizes
> >>> small.
> >> There was a wide variety of opinions, but no clear direction. I have no
> >> objections towards changing the assemblies. I just don't have the energy
> >> to push for a standard for Commons assemblies at this time. So I would
> >> like to use the assembly that we have now for this release.
> >>
> >>
> > <snap/>
> >
> > As I mentioned in the thread referenced above, I do think each
> > component needs to have some sense of communal responsibility, one
> > that goes beyond this component and this release. I'm sure we can
> > accomodate variations to distros as it makes sense, and we can
> > collectively choose to change current styles.
> >
> > However, having components package releases differently hurts because
> > (overarching sentiment is we have many interdependencies, anyone using
> > one component is likely to need many):
> >
> >  * For users, having the distros be familiar means less time /
> > frustration to figure things out
> >  * For developers, having distros be familiar means less inertia to
> > take on new releases
>
> I agree with all of the above.

> We need a common, well documented way of
> packaging up our distributions. As I stated earlier, I'm not opposed to
> changing to another form of distribution assemblies. I just don't have
> the energy ATM to be the driving force behind how such assemblies should
> look. If someone says "Hey, do it like this" and everyone agrees on
> that, then I'll change to it.

I've created Jira issue LOGGING-118 which has a patch to create both
source and binary distribution archives.

I just copied the relevant bits from another commons project (lang).

Seems to work for me.

> > Finally, for clarity, if you really want to proceed the way you have
> > things set up, I don't consider that to be a blocking factor. In any
> > case, the time you're spending on v1.1.1 is appreciated.
> >
> > -Rahul
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Dennis Lundberg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message