Hi Thilina, Thilina Gunarathne wrote: > Hi all, > Currently we are maintaining a separate maven.xml at > release_docs/maven_scripts/maven-std.xml to include in the source > distribution.
We created separate maven scripts as earlier we have two distros. And yes, if we ship only one source distro we might use the main maven.xml. While I agree with your claim about the problems of maintaining two versions of the same resource, please think about user experience, as that is more important than anything. As you also have noticed, the main script contains goals which can not be run against the source release. And when some goals that will be used with the source may also not work due to the reactor issue. Eventhough it is cumbersome to maintain two scripts, we have no option than to release the best script we have and it should not give any problems. This means we need to maintain a separate version of the maven.xml, as of now and the we have to make sure the released version is up-to-date. Thinking about the end user experience I'm -1 on releasing the maven.xml we use during development and +1 for maintaining a new one. This is why we need to test releases properly before releasing them. > Also also we need > to ship the contents of the legal folder with the source distribution, > which I personally think is a must.. I can't figure out why you want to ship legal folder with the source release. Please read the respective licenses. IIRC, we have to include the licenses, only if we are re-distributing them. Since we are not shipping jars with our source release, there is no necessity to include the licenses in it. But you might want to add an entry to the README.txt. Just check with Tomcat source release. And they don't ship other licenses with the source release. You might wanna read this (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html). Dims, please correct me if I'm wrong. - Chinthaka
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
