Given that we cannot do a release build of the source code without having GIT, I think keeping the text we have on our download page is very confusing to our users. I will go ahead and fix it for now, and I am happy to have another discussion thread on whether to recommend binary or source downloads.
I also am looking at other projects, and I am seeing that they simply provide source and binary without actually imposing any recommendation on the user. For example, take a look at Apache Kafka download page, which is a popular incubating project within Apache: http://kafka.apache.org/downloads.html I would prefer that we take the same approach. D. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 26.03.2015 08:47, [email protected] wrote: >> > Author: dsetrakyan >> > Date: Thu Mar 26 07:47:28 2015 >> > New Revision: 1669287 >> > >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1669287 >> >> >> Well, in my opinion, the source download should be first on the page, >> not the binaries. Binaries are not official releases; the sources are. >> We should be encouraging people to use the sources. >> > > Brane, > > Our release build procedure which builds the binary, requires that you > must be under the GIT root. The reason is that it automatically grabs the > version from the GIT server in order to imprint it into the release. So the > build you are suggesting does not even work. User would still be able to > build the maven modules, but user cannot build the actual binary release, > hence the -P-release option. > > I don't mind having a separate discussion about how useful it is for our > users to build a complete binary from the source zip (and not from GIT), > but in the mean time, I cannot call it the recommended way, because it is > not. Do you mind if I update the text? > > D. > > > >> -- Brane >> > >
