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
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
