On 6/25/18 11:34 PM, Andy LoPresto wrote:
Hi folks,
I do not want to start a long-running argument or entrenched battle.
However, having just performed the RM duties for the latest release, I
believe I have identified a resource inefficiency in the fact that we
generate, upload, host, and distribute two compressed archives of the
binary which are functionally equivalent. For 1.7.0, both the .tar.gz
and .zip files are 1.2 GB (1_224_352_000 bytes for tar.gz vs.
1_224_392_000 bytes for zip). The time to build and sign these is
substantial, but the true cost comes in uploading and hosting them.
While the fabled extension registry will save all of us from this
burden, it isn’t arriving tomorrow, and I think we could drastically
improve this before the next release.
I have no personal preference between the two formats. In earlier days,
there were platform inconsistencies and the tools weren’t available on
all systems, but now they are pretty standard for all users. This [1] is
an interesting article I found which had some good info on the origins,
and here are some additional resources for anyone interested [2][3]. I
don’t care which we pick, but I propose removing one of the options for
the build going forward (toolkit as well).
That said, if someone has a good reason that both are necessary, I would
love to hear it. I didn’t find anything on the Apache Release Policy
which stated we must offer both, but maybe I missed it. Thanks.
I'm not aware of any ASF policy. I think it mostly stems from default
convention you get out of the maven-assembly-plugin.
[1] https://itsfoss.com/tar-vs-zip-vs-gz/
[2] https://superuser.com/a/1257441/40003
[3] https://superuser.com/a/173995/40003
[4] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#artifacts
Andy LoPresto
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
/[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>/
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
