> 1. The source .tar.gz and .zip contain the site/coverage-report/ > directory. While including the generated phpdoc could be considered > useful for people who just want to use log4php and not rebuild it, > the coverage report seems pretty useless to me.
Yes, I think so. > 2. Should we distribute the apidocs alongside the .tar.gz even if > they could be generated by the user using maven? I would include API docs because the risk that a user needs em is quite high. > 3. The package-config.php and package.php are not included in > the .tar.gz and .zip. IIRC because they are not needed by the > endusers but it just came to my mind that this means that the > user cannot generate the phpdoc using "mvn site" as this would fail > due to the missing files. Ok, maybe phpdoc is generated before the > pear package, I don't remember, but it looks a bit unprofessional if > we distribute the pom.xml but know that it will fail with errors, or? I agree again :-) IMHO a user should be able to run tests, coverage reports etc. all himself. This also goes for pear packages. > 4. The creation of the superfluous empty .jar will not annoy any of > the reviewers, or? I have no idea how to turn it off and it would > probably require an ant task to simply remove it. Voting is upon the assemblies itself, not on the creation process. We will not distribute this jar nor would we make it available for voting. Means, nobody will be annoyed of that. We can change the packaging mode to "dir" maybe and then only a directory will appear. If we want something else, we would have to create a custom lifecycle binding, but I don't think we need this at the moment. Cheers, Christian > > bye, > > -christian- >
