Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Few simple questions: > > Should we use 2 different dirs for src and binary distribution ? Or > maybe 3 dirs ( src, bin, doc ) ?
Why duplicate the existing distributions? They're available, mirrored and well understood. > Are "milestone" builds acceptable ? Should we get some weekly gump > builds from HEAD into the repository ? FWIW, Milestone and even 'snapshot' builds have proven necessary for projects using Maven. > What policy should we use for removing older versions ( or we just keep > everything ) ? It needs to be driven by usage. If someone is still using ant 1.1, fine keep it available. There's nothing worse than a build failing because the repository has changed. > Since the versioned jar/unversioned dir format is used - I think various > PMCs should try to get the various projects to use the same format > internally. That's a project decision. I don't see anyone should be forcing the projects to change their build process to match the repository. That's why the ibiblio repository has manual admin as an option (at the moment it's the only one). > I would prefer the reverse ( versioned dirs / unversioned jars ) - but I > can live with the reverse if it does have a "majority" support. So asking the projects which format they would like for a repository they don't currently use? Sounds like asking for uninformed opinions. I'd be happier to come ask them to participate in a discussion here. > Could we put at least this option to a vote, just to have a record that > it isn't just a random decision but what the committers really want ? Why not ask the users of the repository. The committers wont be the main users. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog Work: http://www.multitask.com.au --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
