On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Greg Reddin <gred...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Carol Frampton <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote: >> When donating Flex code, should the batik directory include all of the batik >> 1.6 source files with the modification applied, or should it just include >> the files that were modified? If the later the build would have to download >> the distro, unzip it, apply the modification and the build the jar. > > I would include all of the source files so it's easier for us to see > exactly what we have.
I agree with that. There was a discussion recently on the board@ list about projects releasing code from other projects - the consensus is that the package names should change when that happens, to avoid confusion with the original project. Of course, the best way is to contribute whatever patches are needed to the original project, and maybe become a committer there in the process. If that's not possible (or maybe too late for the Flex cases now), I would recommend changing the java package names to something under org.apache.flex to avoid confusion. > >>... In either case, is it okay to add the build jar file to svn so that it >>doesn’t have to be rebuilt? When and if the sources are ever modified again >>the jar can be updated. > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think I'd rather see the source > added with build instructions, than a binary... Agreed, binaries in svn are usually a bad idea. IMO those patched projects should go under their own source tree, and maybe considered as subprojects of Flex. If they use org.apache.flex package names, they can be released so as not to have to build them every time. -Bertrand
