Ross Gardler wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > >Ross Gardler wrote: > >>Tim Williams wrote: > >>>David Crossley wrote: > >>>>[about Eclipse plugin tool ...] > >>>>It adds more fat to our release download. I suppose > >>>>that is why it was added to the roadmap. > >>>I don't remember if this was ever addressed or not but I recall one of > >>>the "issues" with forrest that came up with some of our users was the > >>>"largeness" of the download. To ease some of that, what are thoughts > >>>on removing (from the release): > >>> > >>>- /etc (100K) > >>>- /main/java (140K) > >>>- /site-author (2.89M) > > > >One reason for including this is so that they have local docs. > >This also enables people to easily tweak and send a patch. Hmmpf. > >Another reason is probably so that we release the source. > >Perhaps we should release a separate "docs" package. > > It should be fairly easy to have a compromise position. For example, can > we separate the 0.8 docs and release them, leaving the 0.6 and 0.7 docs > online only. Similarly we can trim the plugin docs.
Not easily. > I'm not sure what impact this will have on the size of the download but > it must be significant given that all together is 2.89M by Tims > evaluation above. > > >>>- /tools/forrestbot (865K) > > > >That is a necessary tool. IMO should still be included > >or it should be released as a separate package. > > +0 > > >>>- /tools/eclipse (431K) > > > >Not sure how you calculate those numbers. I get 17Mb. > >IMO this should not be included. > > +0 > > >>>- /tools/logos (2M) (don't know what these do, so just a guess here) > > > >There is a thread in the dev archives from me about this. > >IMO should not be included. > > +0 > > >We also have stuff in whiteboard to consider. > > Whiteboard should be a separate download. Why all of it? Is that all targetted at users and ready for them? The Forrest PMC would need to vote on its release as a package. > >>>Some are to get rid of some release weight and others are to avoid > >>>some confusion (e.g. why are you shipping .java files with a release). > > > >What we released in the past is a combined source/binary release. > >The idea was that they would have everything required to > >dive in and tweak things. > > > >Why are *.java included? AFAIK we release open source > >software, so we include our source. The pre-built binary > >forrest.jar is included for convenience to users. > > +1 for including the source (including docs since this is a pretty good > example of a major content object) > > >>I would like to see the binary distribution only include Forrest core > >>and the necessary tools. No plugins, no whiteboard, no forestbot, no > >>eclipse etc. > > I agree to all that *except* we should include source. In this I am > assuming that the trimmed sources (see above comments about docs) will > bring the size down a fair amount. If the source package is large then > I'd not object to separate source/binary releases. > > Having said all this the real problem with our size is the jars we > bundle not Forrest itself, these account for 40Mb according to "du -h > lib" trimming a further 1 or two meg by dropping source is kind of > irrelevant most people will have a brew during download whether it is > 42Mb or 44Mb. Sounds like a task for Ivy. We also have some duplicate jars at various other places in our SVN. > >Does the following make sense to have separate combined > >source/binary packages? > > > >* "apache-forrest-core" which includes everything under "main" > >and "bin" and "tools/ant" and "tools/jetty" and includes a > >pre-built forrest.jar file. > >Does it also need the plugin descriptors? > > Plugin descriptors are retrieved from the web if not available locally > (needs testing in case my memory is playing tricks on me). Probably should include them in the release so that their first experience can be offline. > >* "apache-forrest-forrestbot" includes its source and a pre-built binary. > > > >* "apache-forrest-plugins" includes all plugins (both core and > >whiteboard) at the time of the "core" release, plus pre-built > >binaries for those plugins that need it. > > OK > > >>Plugins are auto downloaded on the first run anyway (we should provide a > >>separate plugins package though). > > > >Actually we have some problems with the way we have been > >"releasing" plugins. Basically the PMC needs to vote on every > >package that is intended for use beyond the developers. > > > >Not sure in which thread we should discuss this aspect. It was > >raised once before here: > >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=115398481306651 > >and see the notes at http://apache.org/dev/release.html#what > > There is an issue for this somewhere (I think) - can't search now, > working with offline email - sorry. Would someone please find this. > >Also the plugins should be on the mirror system, rather than > >being provided from w.a.o website. Not sure how we can fix that. > >Probably don't need to do this immediately, but certainly > >before Forrest gets too many users. > > Assuming descriptors are retrieved from the web then we can make this > change later since the descriptor will say where to download from. > > However, we should really be using something like Ivy to manage our > plugin downloads and therefore do away with our "proprietary" > descriptors (not a 0.8 issue) That sounds great. > >>The src release should still include eveything. > > > >Are you still wanting that? It would be huge. > > Everything except whiteboard? What about my proposal above to have combined binary/source release (like we do now) except only have separate packages of specific parts, i.e. not everything. -David > >By the way, i don't have the time to follow through on this. > >I can help, but i cannot be the main man. > > Similarly, I'm not likely to find the time to trim 0.8. Of course, I'm > willing to give my opinion on things, but given I have no time you won't > see any +/-1's from me on these issues. However, I will assist with > building, signing, testing release distributions once they are ready. > > Ross
