> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Tim Anderson wrote:
>>>>>From the requirements at
>>>>"ASF Repository shall ... allow browsing and downloading of artifacts by
>>>>humans via normal
>>>>web browser".
>>>>Requiring a version to be part of the artifact file name when the
>>>>artifact is only useful to end users (e.g README), reduces clarity.
>>>But it does increase usability sometimes.
>>>README for which version?
>>An example:
>>  http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-dbcp/1.1/README
>>The README is for version 1.1 of commons-dbcp.

>By implication - the README is not an artifact but a feature of a version.
>Is that a reasonable conclusion?

Why make the distinction? I view everything a project deploys as an
Some artifacts will only be useful to end users (e.g, README, LICENSE.txt
others will be useful to tools.


Reply via email to