openmeetings-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "" <>
Subject Re: Structure of binaries and sources in dist folder
Date Wed, 03 Apr 2013 04:21:24 GMT

I did not really expect that this folder structure of the RC candidate will
be exactly the folder structure of our distribution area.
Is there an example of any Apache Project that does organize the sources
and binaries like that?
If yes then we might be able to continue the release process.
If not we might simply change the structure and wait another 24 horus for
the mirrors to sync.

There is also plenty of other stuff todo:
 - updating the website as soon as the mirrors have synced
 - Writing the announce message to several lists
 - catching up with the press team at to find out how we
can work together and provide them with nice article for our first release
 - write a nice blog post at

That is what comes to my mind. Actually those tasks are not all part of the
todos of the release manager. Anybody of us can take care of for example
writing the blog post.


2013/4/3 Maxim Solodovnik <>

> Hello Sebastian,
> While creating file/folder structure I inspected some other projects,
> flex, wicket, tomcat, mina etc.all of them have binaries and sources
> somehow separated, I'll rename the folder in the dist as soon as we will
> agree on folder structure (was hope the structure was reviewed on release
> candidates ...) since it blocks announce (mirrors need to be synced)
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:11 AM, <
>> wrote:
>> Hi Maxim,
>> could you plz check if our binaries and sources are correctly organized?
>> I am currently not sure, the other projects seem to have the structure:
>> while we do create a binary and source folder for each version.
>> I know this might be picky but its our first release and it is likely
>> that the conventions we make now will stay like that forever.
>> So are we going to create a separate folder for each release?
>> So
>> Is that in line with the ASF docs ?
>> The other projects seem to cut the 0 in the name of the release. We have
>> it now with the folder name 2.1 and the package itself is called 2.1.0.
>> Please decide for either one :)
>> Either you call the folder (if there is one for each release) 2.1.0 and
>> the package 2.1.0 or call the folder 2.1 and the package has the name 2.1 :)
>> Thanks,
>> Sebastian
>> --
>> Sebastian Wagner
> --
> Maxim aka solomax

Sebastian Wagner!/dead_lock

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