Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:04:54 +1100
From: David Crossley <crossley@apache.org>
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: content of release [was: Re: review list of scheduled issues for
 0.8 release]
Message-ID: <20061123080454.GQ903@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
References: <499888440607101749p3c1ce836rb450d26187dc9eeb@mail.gmail.com>
 <44B2F9B4.40201@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <44B2F9B4.40201@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

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.

> >- /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.

> >- /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.

> I did a similar analysis before the 0.6 release and before the 0.7 
> release. We've ever had consensus to remove other stuff, I'm really not 
> sure why.

Perhaps not followed through. I don't remember such
discussion. Can anyone find it in the archives?

> 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.

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?

* "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.

> 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

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.

> The src release should still include eveything.

Are you still wanting that? It would be huge.

         --------- oOo ---------

http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-911
"decide content of release"

         --------- oOo ---------

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

-David