Jim Hurley wrote:
OPEN
=====
* Name, Version, release bundle, top-level installation directory
Apache has some guidelines around release file naming, as
discussed in:
<http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming>
Following those, it seems like we should call our release:
* apache-river-<#release number>-incubating-{bin/src}.{tar/zip}
Having a separate binary and source release is different than our
practice with the Jini starter kit... but seems to fit into the best
practices outlined in the "A Guide to Release Management During Incubation
(DRAFT)". We could include the source in the binary distribution, but
I'll propose we don't for now (smaller download, potentially different
user, etc).
I'm comfortable with a source and binary download but as those
interested in the first release indicated they wanted it to be
compatible to the largest extent possible and what will the impact be?
Will an overlay of the source and binary distribution e.g. result in
something that equals the current JTSK distribution, if so I don't see a
real problem.
For the top-level installation directory, I'll propose
"apache-river-<#release number>"/
For "naming" - we do have the option of using a different name in the
release (for example, in the release documentation, we could refer to
it as "River Starter Kit" or some such). I'll propose for now that we
just call it "Apache River".
Personally I would prefer "Apache River Jini Technology Kit" and
therefore apache-river-jtk-<#release number>-incubating...,
but these are all the words I want to spend on discussing a name :-)
Finally, around version -- some have expressed a desire to follow
the version numbering of the starter kit (to align with those releases
and communicate that this isn't a 0.1 release or the like). Thus, the
last Starter Kit release was "v2.1" so this could be (v.2.1.1, v2.2, or
v.3.0). I don't really have a personal preference on this one at all,
and am very interested in what your opinion is here.
v2.1.1
--
Mark
