On Jan 16, 2011, at 11:21 PM, Shai Erera wrote: > > Release-wise though, as long as running "ant test" from top-level dir ends > with "BUILD SUCCESSFUL", the release should be good to go. We should publish > the Source, Javadocs and .Jar files. While I agree the latter is not strictly > mandatory, I think it's more widely used (than say Maven) and it makes > consuming Lucene much easier. >
Agreed. Jars are just plain good for Lucene. When you tell the users that they have to build a release from source, that is a serious usage downer based on any experience I've managed to build up. Technically, you can release very lightly due to the 3 votes thing. But really, Lucene has always been about consensus more than the bare minimum rules. There has always been consensus about jars IMO (until Robert is now rocking the boat ;) ), but to my knowledge, there has never been consensus about Maven. Personally, I still like the idea of Maven being handled down stream from Lucene with an interested committer placing the poms on apaches servers as his part of that downstream group. Short of that, I'm still fairly fine with what Ryan said - lets do this release and not think about Maven - if others have it ready when we release, then so be it. And FYI - the parallel maven build setup still scares me personally :) - Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
