commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Fox <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Commons VFS 2.0
Date Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:59:00 GMT
>> We need both zips and tars of the sources for the actual release (what we push to

> Brian wants to know why.  It certainly isn't mandated by the board.

That gets me into trouble a lot of times. "Because we always have done
it that way" is my favorite opportunity to ask why. You guys are
certainly free to make tar.gz's if you want and I have nothing to say
about it. However here's why I ask:

We've tried to setup a standard profile in the apache pom that will
meet the basic requirements for any Apache project using Maven to meet
the things like LICENSE/NOTICE and signed source archives. So far, the
zip has been sufficient for all the projects using it. I can't see any
value in duplicating the source archive as a tar.gz because as I
mentioned, it shouldn't normally have binaries and therefore the
permissions are irrelevant. Since it's unlikely we would want to
enable this for all projects, it means you would have to extend the
profile in a way that causes you to diverge from the norm and it will
make it harder to consume standard changes down the road. (in fact
most of the troubles we've seen getting vfs released were related to
undoing the legacy profile and using the standard one).

So I wonder why a tar.gz sourceball is needed and is it worth it to
diverge just for that.

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

View raw message