forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tim Williams" <william...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: content of release [was: Re: review list of scheduled issues for 0.8 release]
Date Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:10:21 GMT
On 11/23/06, David Crossley <crossley@apache.org> 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.

Still a lot of bloat for an optional piece.  When I go to the docs for
example, I go to f.a.o for them - if someone wants them locally that
should (IMO) be separately. We ask for patches via svn so they'll need
to get the docs separately anyway likely.

> > >- /tools/forrestbot (865K)
>
> That is a necessary tool. IMO should still be included
> or it should be released as a separate package.
>
> > >- /tools/eclipse (431K)
>
> Not sure how you calculate those numbers. I get 17Mb.
> IMO this should not be included.

Seems subjective to keep forrestbot and dump eclipse.  Neither work
well for me, so I'm inclined to say drop them both from the release.

 > > >- /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.
>
> We also have stuff in whiteboard to consider.
>
> > >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.

Huh?  That's not right, open source means the source is freely
available rather than shipped with every release.  Look around at our
peers (httpd, ant, tomcat) - none that I see ship .java files with a
release.  I disagree with your (this-follows-that) conclusion here.

 --tim

Mime
View raw message