commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel F. Savarese" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Date Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:50:13 GMT

In message <02AA127CD8DCDE48BC7D2DFB6C87083A07DDA909@nwt-s-mbx2.rocketsoftware.
com>, Gary Gregory writes:
>I do not think we should base decisions like this on a byte count, relative=
> or not. I like to think of what users do with this stuff.

To be clear, the reason for removing the extra jars from commons-net was
that their inclusion did not appear to have been purposeful, having been
picked up by a *.jar filter that would pick up any new .jar artifacts that
happened to be built.  I had no idea the extra jars were being included
and neither did sebb.  Comments about bloat were secondary in addition to
the primary goal of wanting to correct what appeared to be an unintentional

That said, at no time do I recall any commons-net user make a request
for including additional artifacts, specifically source code, in the
binary distribution.  Does anyone involved in this thread actually
use commons-net and the javadoc/source jars in its binary distribution?

Setting aside that the extra jars are available via the maven repository
for anyone who needs them, if it's important to include javadoc and
source jars, the only thing that makes any sense to me is to include the
javadoc jar in the binary distribution and omit an extracted documentation
tree.  Every Java developer, using an IDE or not, knows how to run
jar -x to extract the javadocs (of course, they should also know how to
create a jar).

The source jar can go in the source distribution, omitting the
extracted directory tree already contained in the jar.  In general,
when you download a binary distribution you do not expect for it
to include source code.  Likewise, when you download source code,
you don't expect it to include binaries.  I do not think it is
unreasonable for someone who wants both binaries and source code to
download both the binary and source distributions.  If the world is
such that people expect source code to be present in a binary
distribution, then I capitulate.  This is not a big deal other than
in the hypothetical case where a sufficient number of projects add
redundant artifacts to distributions so that all those extra bytes
consume excessive bandwidth when mirrors pull from the ASF.  A number
of years ago we were advised by infrastructure to remove old releases
to reduce bandwidth consumption when mirrors pulled.  Halving the
size of the binary release would be consistent with that overall goal.

The above is merely my opinion, not a call to action.  This matter
isn't worth the time expended so far on it, so whatever ends up
happening is fine by me.  However, let's please avoid indirectly
denigrating remarks.  I didn't "start a mess."  All I did was vote
on a release.  How others react is not my doing.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message