On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 I agree, this is sensible and the right way to go. I just wanted to make sure we were clear to Jordan what the rules are and what's best practice. Patrick
