lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: discussion about release frequency.
Date Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:15:46 GMT
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>wrote:

>
> Because it's not authoritative.  How would our users know which one is the
> official one?  By publishing it under the ASF one with our signatures we are
> saying this is our official version.  We would never claim that the Solr
> Commons CSV one is the official Commons jar, it's just the official one that
> Solr officially uses.  It's a big difference.   Besides, it's not like the
> iBiblio repo is open to anyone.  You have to apply and you have to have
> authority to write to it.  For the ASF, there is a whole sync process
> whereby iBiblio syncs with an ASF version.  In other words, we are the only
> ones who can publish it to the same space where it is currently published.
>
>
This "authoratitiveness" comes with a significant cost, that is the
complexity of maven in our release process.  I'm not convinced its worth
this cost, and before we decide to have maven as part of the release, i'd
like for there to be an actual vote.

Sorry to change my tone, but I was under the impression we needed a lucene
committer to do all this releasing work to support maven, it seems that this
is not the case, and other options are available.

-- 
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message