incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] approve the 4.0.2 (RC4) release of ActiveMQ
Date Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:56:39 GMT
On 10/10/06, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2006, at 2:59 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > the source distributions unpacks to the same directory as the binary.
> > this is inconvenient for users. it's better to unpack the source to
> > incubator-activemq-4.0.2-src.
>
> I disagree with that.  Usually, a source distribution should be the
> entire distribution tree before an ant/make/maven, and the binary
> distribution should overlay on top of that into new subdirs
> of the main tree.  Some of the duplicate files get replaced that way,
> but it is better for the user to have one tree.

providing that the unpacking application doesn't decide to trash the
entire directory (which is thankfully less common these days). an
overlay would work well provided that the binary distribution is
reasonable congruent in structure with the source. not very useful if
they differ too radically in structure.

> I don't think there is a generally accepted Apache way of separating
> these things,

true

i've never heard anyone defend this position before. unless you plan
to patch it (add the content anywhere: the documents a mess but it'll
be easy enough to pull together once the content's written) i'll add
something about this alternative strategy into the draft release
managment document.

separate source is the jakarta style of releases and is what a lot of
users expect it for that reason. the advantage for developers is that
they can unpack a source release next to their current checkout. (not
sure that's as important now with subversion.) users tend to use the
binary (which often contains the source now) but is structured for
easy use rather than easy development.

> since the really important part is the source tree.

i've been surprised by the number of proposals which are binary only

> I think it is important to make it clear that the binaries are just
> a convenience layer and not a separate distribution (even if they are
> distributed separately).

finding clear and appropriate langauge is tough. i don't like calling
them binary and source releases. i prefer to talk about a single
release with different types of distribution (source and binaries) for
the reason that they are the same release distributed separately.

any better suggestions?

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message