Costin Manolache wrote:
quoting yourself, how about:What policy should we use for removing older versions ( or we just keep everything ) ?my take: keep everything. Again, policy should be the same as for the contents of /dist/. I dunno
if there is an asf-wide policy for that...looking at http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/old/, those guys
don't share my view :D
What about a "at least 6 months and 2 versions back" ?
"+1 for each project/PMC choosing what to publish/remove." And you and I can recommend to each
project/PMC our respective preferred policy.
yep. I think the best argument is "common practice", and that's something which can be measured toIf you
feel like holding a vote, by all means feel free, I'll probably vote -1 for deviating from the existing
format (unless you've got a good argument rather than preference; I share your preference but it
is just that ;)
There are few good arguments for both ways.
a degree.
If we host external packages - some licenses prohibit modifications of the binary distribution ( I read this as "you can't rename jars").I think anyone who uses or accepts a license that dictates filenames is silly, but that could be just me :D
It also seems to be a very common practice - almost all projects I know use unversioned jars.
you and I work on different projects I guess!
If anyone feels like it, one could do actual statistical analysis on
http://cvs.apache.org/~leosimons/jars-in-cvs/
though one would have to compensate for the smart projects which don't keep binaries in CVS...
I would say this beats the argument on the maven practice ( that ruper is also supporting ). I see no reason why a download tool can't accomodate both.
me neither, but it sounds like more work again ;)
On the other side - the practice on .so library supports the versioned
jars, as well as the ability to have all .jars in a single dir and use the
manifest to select the right version.
not to mention apt, rpm, CPAN, PEAR (ie CPAN 4 PHP), OpenBSD, ...
I think a vote would be necesary - I'll probably propose it in the projects I participate in. Probably a global jakarta vote would also
make sense - at least to gather what's the majority things and recommend it.
I say go for it (though I hope everyone shares my opinion :D)
Since I don't think there is an absolute "right" - I obviously preffer a majority decision, that would justify some pushing and work to get ituhuh. There's that word again, "work". A good scientist is a lazy scientist. Does that hold for
adopted.
programmers? (Are programmers scientists?) I say go for it though. Actually I just said it for
the second time. Not lazy enough yet, me.
cheers,
- Leo, sometime-to-be-scientist, and planning to be a good one
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
