Mailing-List: contact river-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:56:26 -0400
From: Frank Barnaby <Frank.Barnaby@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: River release naming, version, etc.
In-reply-to: <46F3F6B5.1070401@cheiron.org>
Sender: Frank.Barnaby@Sun.COM
To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-id: <1CCAD7E9-B8AA-48DF-BC9D-005F96E0FDA5@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <556FCD1C-AEF8-4899-AD54-919540322DFD@sun.com>
 <46F3F6B5.1070401@cheiron.org>


On Sep 21, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Mark Brouwer wrote:

> Jim Hurley wrote:
>>> OPEN
>>> =====
>>> * Name, Version, release bundle, top-level installation directory
>> Apache has some guidelines around release file naming, as
>> discussed in:
>> <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming>
>> Following those, it seems like we should call our release:
>>   *  apache-river-<#release number>-incubating-{bin/src}.{tar/zip}
>> Having a separate binary and source release is different than our
>> practice with the Jini starter kit... but seems to fit into the  
>> best practices outlined in the "A Guide to Release Management  
>> During Incubation
>> (DRAFT)".  We could include the source in the binary distribution,  
>> but
>> I'll propose we don't for now (smaller download, potentially  
>> different
>> user, etc).
>
> I'm comfortable with a source and binary download but as those
> interested in the first release indicated they wanted it to be
> compatible to the largest extent possible and what will the impact be?
> Will an overlay of the source and binary distribution e.g. result in
> something that equals the current JTSK distribution, if so I don't  
> see a
> real problem.


Yes, the proposed distribution would be very similar to the current JTSK
distribution.


Frank