Jim Hurley wrote: > On Sep 21, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote: >> On Sep 21, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Mark Brouwer wrote: >>> 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. >> >> >> Yes, the proposed distribution would be very similar to the current JTSK >> distribution. >> >> >> Frank > > The use of non-plural "download" and "distribution" above confused me -- > so to make sure we're all talking apples and apples (not oranges)... > > There would be two downloads/distributions types: > apache-river-<#release number>-incubating-bin.{tar/zip} > apache-river-<#release number>-incubating-src.{tar/zip} > > A resulting overlay of the two downloads would seemingly result > in something that equals the current Starter Kit download. >
This is good for me..... > -Jim > >
