That makes lots of sense to standardize. So, if we standardize, IMHO we should standardize on provide both. It really is only a single line in the default assembly. No big deal.
-h On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:59, Brian Fox <bri...@infinity.nu> wrote: >>> >>> We need both zips and tars of the sources for the actual release (what we >>> push to dist/). > >> Brian wants to know why. It certainly isn't mandated by the board. > > That gets me into trouble a lot of times. "Because we always have done > it that way" is my favorite opportunity to ask why. You guys are > certainly free to make tar.gz's if you want and I have nothing to say > about it. However here's why I ask: > > We've tried to setup a standard profile in the apache pom that will > meet the basic requirements for any Apache project using Maven to meet > the things like LICENSE/NOTICE and signed source archives. So far, the > zip has been sufficient for all the projects using it. I can't see any > value in duplicating the source archive as a tar.gz because as I > mentioned, it shouldn't normally have binaries and therefore the > permissions are irrelevant. Since it's unlikely we would want to > enable this for all projects, it means you would have to extend the > profile in a way that causes you to diverge from the norm and it will > make it harder to consume standard changes down the road. (in fact > most of the troubles we've seen getting vfs released were related to > undoing the legacy profile and using the standard one). > > So I wonder why a tar.gz sourceball is needed and is it worth it to > diverge just for that. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
