Jim What do you think now? Was that a good or bad thing?
TLDR; I’m in favor of convenient binaries is just the how they are handled. Sorry for my brevity, what I meant is that binaries should not be beside next to the source release seating on the same server and giving the same guarantees for both type of artifacts (source vs binary). Now in terms of convenience :-) ASF should not block a project of making binaries available to their community for what ever purpose they think appropriate (ie nightly, binary of a RC, binary of final RC) ASF should provide guidance to the projects to make sure they make their communities aware that a source artifact is different from a binary artifact. A project for example can put warnings and bold text on the location (ie directory, readme, inside the binary, download webpage, wiki etc) where the community downloads a copy of the binary. The warning can say this is not a release of the ASF, is just a convenient binary “download on your own risk”, we provide sha256 sum and maybe the binary is even signed, but best practice is for you to download the source and be in control of building the binary. - Carlos Santana @csantanapr > On Nov 7, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > Just a FYI that in the early days of the ASF (and the httpd project), > community binaries were a common offering... > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
