On 14/02/15 11:44, Claude Warren wrote:
I was looking to download some components (specifically Security and Fuseki
2.x).  I found them in the SNAPSHOT repository (as expected) but the
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/jena/jena-fuseki/2.0.0-SNAPSHOT/
directory only contains POMs and not packages as the
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/jena/jena-fuseki/1.1.2-SNAPSHOT/
does.  Is this intentional?

Yes.

jena-fuseki is the root of the Fuseki hierarchy. Fuseki2 is multi-module and multi-delivery for binaries.

Things are in jena-fuseki-*, e.g. jena-fuseki-war, and the download is apache-jena-fuseki.

(Fusek2 has not been releases yet.)

On a slightly tangential topic:

Many sites provide download links to the current release as well as the
current snapshot.  We don't seem to do this.  Is there a reason why not?

At Apache, we do not mix releases (VOTEd on, formally the responsibility of the Foundation, with source-release and more archived forever via /dist/, PGP-signed) and development snapshots (not voted on, technically the responsibility of the person who caused it to be built, not archived by Apache, not signed).

The downloads page must not lead to development builds.

It can, and does, point to the source in git.

We have separate page that mentions snapshots: /download/maven.html
(the list of artifacts is not current for development, only release ATM). Some people might find that borderline and better as /development.html or some such.

It it is not a conscious decision, I'll see what I can do to add links for
latest snapshots.  Also, we have several packages that are not in the
Jena.lib or fuseki (Security for example) that are deployment time addons.
I think these should also be listed on the download page.  Is there any
reason not to do so?

For released modules, no reason not to do so. Adding a list of maven-only binaries released - and pointing to central.maven.org is fine and easiest for end users. It would be great if you did that.


Claude


        Andy

Reply via email to