I'm going to run though an install or two today with the new distro layout, update the install guide and next try to get a release candidate ready.
Allen: anything else you want to wrap up before RC? Elias: what's the ETA on your SSO mods? - Dave On 8/30/06, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like "apache-roller" - Dave On 8/29/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > k ... this has been checked into the roller_3.0 branch now. > > i shuffled around a number of things, so let me know if anything appears > to be broken. > > one question that came up is what we actually want to name the final > release bundle. namely, should the release contain "apache-" in front > of it, which is how it works now, or is that not really necessary and it > should just start as "roller-"? doesn't really matter to me, just makes > the file paths a bit longer is all. this is what we have now ... > > apache-roller-$version > apache-roller-src-$version > > -- Allen > > > Allen Gilliland wrote: > > I think everyone agreed on this so I'm going to move forward with > > implementing it for the 3.0 release. > > > > Does anyone care if I rename a few of the ant tasks along the way, > > namely things like "build-beans" -> "build-business" and other cases > > where I think the naming could be a bit more intuitive? > > > > -- Allen > > > > > > Anil Gangolli wrote: > >> > >> That works. I think that means basically separating the source and > >> "binary" distributions. > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Gilliland" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:53 AM > >> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout > >> > >> > >>> Good point. comments inline ... > >>> > >>> Anil Gangolli wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being combined > >>>> in, and I had a couple of comments/questions. > >>>> > >>>> (1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree > >>>> something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we > >>>> expect it to look like the top of the roller source tree does in SVN > >>>> which itself contains several directories and files (e.g. "web", > >>>> "tools", build.xml) as well as the actual "src" directory below it. > >>> > >>> yes, that definitely makes sense. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> (2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not include > >>>> the binary(?) > >>> > >>> what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source > >>> distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes sense > >>> to me that downloading the source means you don't get a binary. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> (3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are > >>>> under the "tools" in such combined packages? > >>> > >>> seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp" > >>> directory and include a "sources" directory in the source > >>> distribution. in that case the "sources" directory would contain > >>> everything needed to build the war, including libs. > >>> > >>> would that work? > >>> > >>> -- Allen > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> --a. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> To: <[email protected]> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM > >>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> +1 > >>>>> > >>>>> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> +1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote: > >>>>>> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to > >>>>>> > pulling this into an actual proposal ... > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the > >>>>>> distribution > so > >>>>>> > that the download isn't just the webapp. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > -- Allen > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >
