Hi, On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Our mentor(s) are pushing strongly for a source release (which > contains the upstream patches), plus a "lib" release, which is to be > overlaid on the source release to allow it to build.
I wouldn't call it "strongly", rather as just one possible solution that can be implemented in the short term without significant impact on the existing codebase. The other alternatives being suggested seemed quite a bit more complicated. > I much preferred a source release and a convenience source+lib release, > but that caused significant objections, so I gave up. My main objection here is that the official source release should be readily buildable. If the build instructions are essentially "take that other package and build it instead", then IMHO in practice that other package is the one that's being released. Personally I'd be fine with the source package containing required binary dependencies, but since others will likely -1 release candidates like that, I don't see how a convenience package like that would pass review. BR, Jukka Zitting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
