On 18/05/2009, at 10:57 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
The current descriptor produces tar.gz and zip, does anyone have
strong
feelings if this is ok or should we go with only one of them? (and
which
one?)
Why drop .bz2 in the first place?
We have been using .bz2, .tar.gz and .zip based distro releases
always and AFAIK most other ASF projects too.
With this change, we'll be forced to build the missing ones manually
ourselves and/or won't be able to use *only* the new "project"
assembly within our release procedures.
But, as I indicated in MASSEMBLY-409 (see above), if predefined
assemblies can be modified to accept additional configuration
settings/overrides, *then* this would not be a problem as we can
configure the needed formats ourselves then.
Yeah, in general I Think configuring the formats from the plugin
config instead of the assembly descriptor makes more sense. Maybe it
could be set to at least override.
I like zip, tgz as they tend to be the respective preferences of
Windows (no tgz installed by default) and *nix-like users.
Also, I used source-release as the id which would produce bundles
like
foo-1.0-source-release.zip. Any strong feelings on this?
That is a "workaround" for the second issue I described in
MASSEMBLY-409, but I'd still prefer being able to configure the
"classifier" ourselves. We have been using -src as "standard"
extension to indicate a source distribution for all our previous
releases, just as most other ASF projects AFAIK, and very much
prefer being able to continue to do so.
Agree, configuring classifier is better than using the id in hindsight
as they rarely match up.
Otherwise, Brian - plan looks good to me. Thanks for doing this!
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
