commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release commons-logging 1.1.1 (take 2)
Date Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:55:27 GMT
sebb wrote:
> 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.

I think you are missing my point. I can copy those files too, but it's 
the easy way out. We (the whole of Commons) wouldn't gain anything by 
doing that. To gain something we should have a proposal for how 
assemblies should be done in Commons and which files should be included. 
That proposal should then be voted on and documented. Template assembly 
files should be committed to commons-build, so that everyone knows how 
it is done.

>>> 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


-- 
Dennis Lundberg

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


Mime
View raw message