forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: content of release [was: Re: review list of scheduled issues for 0.8 release]
Date Thu, 23 Nov 2006 20:43:13 GMT
David Crossley wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>> Tim Williams wrote:
>>> David Crossley wrote:
>>>> [about Eclipse plugin tool ...]
>>>> It adds more fat to our release download. I suppose
>>>> that is why it was added to the roadmap.
>>> I don't remember if this was ever addressed or not but I recall one of
>>> the "issues" with forrest that came up with some of our users was the
>>> "largeness" of the download.  To ease some of that, what are thoughts
>>> on removing (from the release):
>>>
>>> - /etc (100K)
>>> - /main/java (140K)
>>> - /site-author  (2.89M)
> 
> One reason for including this is so that they have local docs.
> This also enables people to easily tweak and send a patch. Hmmpf.
> Another reason is probably so that we release the source.
> Perhaps we should release a separate "docs" package.


It should be fairly easy to have a compromise position. For example, can 
we separate the 0.8 docs and release them, leaving the 0.6 and 0.7 docs 
online only. Similarly we can trim the plugin docs.

I'm not sure what impact this will have on the size of the download but 
it must be significant given that all together is 2.89M by Tims 
evaluation above.

>>> - /tools/forrestbot (865K)
> 
> That is a necessary tool. IMO should still be included
> or it should be released as a separate package.

+0

>>> - /tools/eclipse (431K)
> 
> Not sure how you calculate those numbers. I get 17Mb.
> IMO this should not be included.

+0

>>> - /tools/logos (2M) (don't know what these do, so just a guess here)
> 
> There is a thread in the dev archives from me about this.
> IMO should not be included.

+0

> We also have stuff in whiteboard to consider.

Whiteboard should be a separate download.

>>> Some are to get rid of some release weight and others are to avoid
>>> some confusion (e.g. why are you shipping .java files with a release).
> 
> What we released in the past is a combined source/binary release.
> The idea was that they would have everything required to
> dive in and tweak things.
> 
> Why are *.java included? AFAIK we release open source
> software, so we include our source. The pre-built binary
> forrest.jar is included for convenience to users.

+1 for including the source (including docs since this is a pretty good 
example of a major content object)

>> I would like to see the binary distribution only include Forrest core 
>> and the necessary tools. No plugins, no whiteboard, no forestbot, no 
>> eclipse etc.

I agree to all that *except* we should include source. In this I am 
assuming that the trimmed sources (see above comments about docs) will 
bring the size down a fair amount. If the source package is large then 
I'd not object to separate source/binary releases.

Having said all this the real problem with our size is the jars we 
bundle not Forrest itself, these account for 40Mb according to "du -h 
lib" trimming a further 1 or two meg by dropping source is kind of 
irrelevant most people will have a brew during download whether it is 
42Mb or 44Mb.

> Does the following make sense to have separate combined
> source/binary packages?
> 
> * "apache-forrest-core" which includes everything under "main"
> and "bin" and "tools/ant" and "tools/jetty" and includes a
> pre-built forrest.jar file.
> Does it also need the plugin descriptors?

Plugin descriptors are retrieved from the web if not available locally 
(needs testing in case my memory is playing tricks on me).

> * "apache-forrest-forrestbot" includes its source and a pre-built binary.
> 
> * "apache-forrest-plugins" includes all plugins (both core and
> whiteboard) at the time of the "core" release, plus pre-built
> binaries for those plugins that need it.

OK

>> Plugins are auto downloaded on the first run anyway (we should provide a 
>> separate plugins package though).
> 
> Actually we have some problems with the way we have been
> "releasing" plugins. Basically the PMC needs to vote on every
> package that is intended for use beyond the developers.
> 
> Not sure in which thread we should discuss this aspect. It was
> raised once before here:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=115398481306651
> and see the notes at http://apache.org/dev/release.html#what

There is an issue for this somewhere (I think) - can't search now, 
working with offline email - sorry.

> Also the plugins should be on the mirror system, rather than
> being provided from w.a.o website. Not sure how we can fix that.
> Probably don't need to do this immediately, but certainly
> before Forrest gets too many users.

Assuming descriptors are retrieved from the web then we can make this 
change later since the descriptor will say where to download from.

However, we should really be using something like Ivy to manage our 
plugin downloads and therefore do away with our "proprietary" 
descriptors (not a 0.8 issue)

>> The src release should still include eveything.
> 
> Are you still wanting that? It would be huge.

Everything except whiteboard?

> By the way, i don't have the time to follow through on this.
> I can help, but i cannot be the main man.

Similarly, I'm not likely to find the time to trim 0.8. Of course, I'm 
willing to give my opinion on things, but given I have no time you won't 
see any +/-1's from me on these issues. However, I will assist with 
building, signing, testing release distributions once they are ready.

Ross

Mime
View raw message