zip is a utility supported in Windows by default. tar is a utility supported by Unix like systems by default as I know.
Also I think the problem here is not having both zip or tar. But a single binary being over 100MB. On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi All, > > I think if we have an issue with size, we can just release the real > production pack with tomcat, no embedded version ? The reason we did > embedded version was people can quickly download and test it but I think if > we pack with tomcat it won't be too hard for people to test and play with > it. > > And I am +1 for Supun's idea, not to release both the zip and tar. > > WDYT ? > > Lahiru > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Shameera Rathnayaka < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marlon, >> >> I would like to add my thought on versionning here, Please see my comment >> inline. >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Marlon Pierce <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> 0.91 is a real number and it indicates also our intention to release 1.0 >>> in the near future. As for GSOC contributions, I would favor having the >>> GSOC participants take the lead on any integration, testing, etc with the >>> trunk. >>> >> >> According to the versionning strategy 0.91 should be a patch release of >> 0.9 release. Therefore it is kind of misleading IMO. So i am +1 for 0.10 >> instead of 0.91. >> >> Thanks, >> Shameera. >> >> >>> >>> Marlon >>> >>> >>> On 9/30/13 11:04 AM, Amila Jayasekara wrote: >>> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Marlon Pierce >>> > <[email protected]><[email protected]>wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> > I'd be concerned about the quality of production testing for releasese >>> > if we just include an embedded server. I think Rave hit this >>> > problem--everyone tested the simplified version packaged for the >>> > release, but there were a lot bugs and other problems that appeared >>> when >>> > trying to use it in a more realistic deployment. >>> > >>> > I think it is better to come up with a packaging strategy that is >>> simple >>> > enough for testing but also reasonably realistic. >>> > >>> > >>> > > +1. I am also negative to only release server distribution. Most of >>> the >>> > > real deployment scenarios use a separate web server to deploy >>> Airavata. >>> > > Further certain functionalities cannot be tested at stand alone >>> version. >>> > > (E.g :- credential store). Therefore we should keep the war >>> distribution. >>> > >>> > > Anyhow there is a blocking issue [1] for the release related to >>> > > distribution size. So we must find a solution for this. (Best thing >>> is to >>> > > unify war distributions and get rid of duplicate jars) >>> > >>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-922 >>> > >>> > > Saminda had been making changes to REST API to incorporate workflow >>> > > execution. Are we planning to make that change available in this >>> release ? >>> > > If so we can get rid of some of SOAP based services. (If this is >>> taking >>> > > place we can unify wars also). Saminda please give feedback on this. >>> > >>> > > Also what about code we inherit from GSOC project ? Are we planning >>> to >>> > > incorporate them to release ? >>> > >>> > > Further for the upcoming release it will be better if we do not >>> include >>> > > many features. Because there are couple of lingering Jira tickets >>> which we >>> > > have been postponing. Its better to fix some of those in hackathon >>> mode >>> > > before the release. >>> > >>> > > @Marlon : Any particular reason why you prefer 0.91 rather than 0.10 >>> ? >>> > > (0.10 is what we have assigned right now) >>> > >>> > > Thanks >>> > > Thejaka Amila >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Marlon >>> > >>> > On 9/30/13 10:30 AM, Raminder Singh wrote: >>> > >>> Problem is not releasing both tar and zip. Problem is size of the >>> war >>> > distribution file which contain >>> > 2 war files (airavata-server.war and airavata-registry.war). Both the >>> > war files have lib jars and increase its size more than 100MB. Apache >>> > limit of 100MB is per file. I think we should only release tar and zip >>> > with embedded server to get started. Creating and deploying of WARs can >>> > be documented for production users. WDYT? >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Thanks >>> > >>> Raminder >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Supun Kamburugamuva >>> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > >>>> I've noticed you are releasing both a tar and a zip for all the >>> > distribution artifacts. I've seen lot of people only releasing a zip or >>> > a tar and not both. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Thanks, >>> > >>>> Supun.. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Saminda Wijeratne >>> > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>>> reducing the release footprint should also be a priority IMO. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Raminder Singh >>> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>>> Airavata 0.9 is released now and Marlon mentioned a timeline for >>> 1.0 >>> > is Mid Nov. How do we want to handle next release? >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Some of the features required for the projects i work with are: >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> GSISSH Provider >>> > >>>> Async execution of Applications and implement your own monitor. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Lets discuss a timeline and plan for next release and as well as >>> for >>> > 1.0. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Thanks >>> > >>>> Raminder >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> On Sep 13, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Marlon Pierce >>> > >>>> <[email protected]><[email protected]>wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>>> Hi all-- >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> Airavata 0.9 is pending, we also would like to have 1.0 in time >>> for >>> > >>>>> Supercomputing 2013 (November 15th), and we have been trying to >>> get >>> > down >>> > >>>>> to ~6 week releases. We have 9 weeks until SC13. >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> I suggest we do the following: >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> * Get 0.9 out over the next couple of days. There are no blocking >>> > issues. >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> * Define 0.91 or 0.10 release next week and target completion in >>> 4 for >>> > >>>>> ~October 11th. >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> * Define and complete 1.0 release for November 15th. The >>> primary goal >>> > >>>>> for 1.0 is to have the API stable. >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> Marlon >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> -- >>> > >>>> Supun Kamburugamuva >>> > >>>> Member, Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org >>> > >>>> E-mail: [email protected]; Mobile: +1 812 369 6762 >>> > >>>> Blog: http://supunk.blogspot.com >>> > >>>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) >>> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >>> >>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSSZmZAAoJEOEgD2XReDo5PyMH/0sBqjLWZDAw2hEWbE41VvVC >>> Jb5VLpgy6iBAqT8nJxRCy1tO22tB/t0SYOT1NVV/LaUMFrqNM1/lCK8ru251Gf4/ >>> a0c4nCMeR+ItLo6uCLSfIC90plNmc2NOHbmiFGNbZCtSfVEnDVo86oVF/OxahLZs >>> 9csQ6bkeZWhNCm98WRDEhGQzSaHpu7qyyL9IGO2spOwPafDQvpiP7jf587h15vSj >>> LfK2Fcf00X8ZIgJBQD5E9//iiBCDQyFW/9WQWV3Mz2UWKJktkA6wMJG2JO5PKcxK >>> Haj4zyxaYfioN3k+CTyce+5+UyK0tr80qwvHzHsIc81ZrfViaCwZ2Ds6VlJt9qs= >>> =m+hz >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards, >> Shameera Rathnayaka. >> >> email: shameera AT apache.org , shameerainfo AT gmail.com >> Blog : http://shameerarathnayaka.blogspot.com/ >> > > > > -- > System Analyst Programmer > PTI Lab > Indiana University >
