I still don't understand why you even *asked* to put these onto dist.a.o. Didn't you stop and wonder why it was 2G? It took me a quick minute to "unzip -l" your bits to see how messed up it was. I find that lack of curiosity the worst part of this episode :-(
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > This is nothing short of a total c*ck up on my behalf as release manager for > the artifacts in question. > We discovered a bug which leads to them being ridiculous size. > I apologise for that. > The 'proper' artifacts are tiny in comparison. > Lewis > > > On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Mark Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 26/06/2013 16:13, Greg Stein wrote: >>> Hmm? Is it normal to put compiled outputs onto dist.apache.org >>> <http://dist.apache.org>? That .war file has a hojillion .jar files in >>> it. My understanding was that dist.a.o is for *source* distributions. >> >> There are convenience binaries on dist.a.o but they are typically in the >> 10s of MB range. 2G appears to be completely OTT. >> >>> Further, it includes a bunch of SNAPSHOT artifacts in the multi-hundred >>> MB range. That seems like a total mistake. >>> >>> In addition, it contains TEN copies of poi-ooxml-schemas-3.8.jar (at 4M >>> each!). That is ludicrous. And TEN copies of netcdf, and TEN copies of >>> pdfbox. etc. You're just blowing away space with those multiple copies. >>> (I only looked at the three largest .jar files piled in there; I'm sure >>> you have ten copies of N other jars!) >>> >>> Why would you even WANT to put this onto our distribution system. Who >>> believes that a 2G distribution is remotely useful, natural, or proper? >>> The .war file seems full of improper bits, and then it gets hauled into >>> your other stuff, polluting them up to 2G. >> >> +1 >> >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi INFRA, >>> I did not realize that some of the Any23 release artifacts were in >>> the GB. >>> The following artifacts (around 7 of them) from the staging URL [0] >>> are in the GB range and I cannot commit them to SVN [1]. I also >>> remember seeing some traffic (a while back) regarding notice which >>> we were supposed to give you if we wished to publish artifacts of >>> this size... I therefore apologize for not getting this through to >>> you earlier. >>> Can you please suggest how we can release these artifacts? >> >> Right now, you can't. >> >> You have two options: >> >> 1. Justify why you need to have so many extremely large artifacts. If >> there is a valid justification, infra will figure out how to get them >> published. >> >> 2. Significantly (by at least one order of magnitude and preferably two) >> reduce the size of your release artifacts and roll a new release. >> >> Mark >> >> > > -- > Lewis >
