On Sep 20, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > > Why don't we just leave this as this: > > Those of us who want Maven supported as part of the release need to get our > stuff together by the next release or else it will be dropped. That means > making sure the artifacts are correct and easily testable/reproducible. If > we can't do that, then I agree, it should be a downstream effort, at least > until we all realize how many people actually use it and then we revisit it > at the next release. > > > But I'm not sure this is the best solution? If we can push this downstream, > so that the release manager has less to worry about (even with testable > artifacts etc, the publication etc), why wouldn't we do that instead? >
Because it's not authoritative. How would our users know which one is the official one? By publishing it under the ASF one with our signatures we are saying this is our official version. We would never claim that the Solr Commons CSV one is the official Commons jar, it's just the official one that Solr officially uses. It's a big difference. Besides, it's not like the iBiblio repo is open to anyone. You have to apply and you have to have authority to write to it. For the ASF, there is a whole sync process whereby iBiblio syncs with an ASF version. In other words, we are the only ones who can publish it to the same space where it is currently published. -Grant
