Thanks, we shall not publish the convenience binary of weex playground anymore until we separate code into two repos. Meanwhile, we would do the release procedure for weex_sdk as usual, which should not conflict with the release policy of ASF as far as I understanding.
Best Regards, York Shen 申远 > 在 2019年5月29日，23:17，Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> 写道： > > Hi YorkShen, > > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 3:29 PM 申远 <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >>> What's more: a convenience binary shouldn't contain the compilation of >>> anything not in the code release. It sounds like what you're publishing >>> there isn't actually Apache Weex, but "based on Apache Weex". >> >> >> Well, what happens here is that there are two libraries in the git repo of >> incubator-weex, namely weex_sdk and weex playground. Apache Weex release >> only contains weex_sdk, and we publish weex_sdk as a convenience binary >> after the Apache Release as well. Then we used to publish weex playground >> to ios App Store in the name of Taobao(China) as we need an apple >> developer/enterprise account to do so. >> > > You'll need to send weex playground through your voting and release process > as a source code release too, otherwise you can't call the binary release > Weex to the rest of the world. Since you're already doing releases for > weex_sdk, though, you know how to do this. It's not uncommon for a single > project to release multiple code bases, sometimes on inconsistent > schedules. Although it might be a challenge with only one release manager. > > >> >> As INFRA[1] owned an Apple developer account, > > > Thank you, I learned something. > > >> I think we could separate >> weex_sdk and weex playground into two repos and publish Weex playground in >> the name of ASF. > > > I personally prefer the multi-repo development model, and Apache does > support it. But it's not a requirement. It's up to y'all. If you need > help getting another repo, let me know. > > Best Regards, > Myrle
