On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > I thought that Apache releases were supposed to be source. I'm getting > > > conflicting information from the mentors on this. I'd prefer a binary > > > release to Maven Central. > > > > > > -JZ > > > > > > > > Source is a must, but most if not all java projects does provide a binary > > and maven artifacts. > > A good practice is to follow how other projects that are around for a > while > > do... > > I go by the following: Apache releases source artifacts, binaries are > considered "convenience artifacts" and not a proper release: > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what > > "The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All releases > are in the form of the source materials needed to make changes to the > software being released. In some cases, binary/bytecode packages are also > produced as a convenience to users that might not have the appropriate > tools to build a compiled version of the source. " > > It's up to you if you want to include binaries along with the source > release. They are helpful to users, which helps to build community, however > in my experience they make the release process tougher (more issues for > people to find). > > Patrick > Although binaries are considered "convenience artifacts", I believe this is a must for java releases (including maven artifacts), particularly because it makes it easier for consumers to integrate these frameworks into their applications which helps growing the community around the podling. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
