commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henning Schmiedehausen <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Commons VFS 2.0
Date Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:28:45 GMT
That makes lots of sense to standardize.

So, if we standardize, IMHO we should standardize on provide both. It
really is only a single line in the default assembly. No big deal.


On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:59, Brian Fox <> wrote:
>>> We need both zips and tars of the sources for the actual release (what we push
to dist/).
>> 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:

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

View raw message