mahout-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: download mahout-0.2 release
Date Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:53:39 GMT
In reading some more of the thread, I think we may have two topics going on
(sorry if I caused the split).

I think that these are:

Thread 1: Core, Colt and other sub-modules should be distributed as (binary)
jars

+1 from me on this.  I didn't imagine that this might be controversial at
all so I didn't even think originally that this might be under discussion.

Thread 2: The source distro should have all dependent jars included in it

-1 from me on this unless we can have a slimmer source jar as well.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Drew Farris <drew.farris@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think that there is a significant advantage to having a small source
> > download.
> >
>
> +1 here. I don't feel that svn access to the sources is sufficient.
>
>
> >    - source plus jars
> >
> >    - binary
> >
>
> I'm not certain that we need both binary and source plus jars, but that
> might be my misunderstanding of the difference between the two. Assuming
> that binary is a subset of source plus jars (without sources), I'd vote for
> a source plus jars alternative and be done with it. I doubt that the source
> would add so much size to the distribution as to cause problems.




-- 
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message