On 25 June 2015 at 15:02, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
One benefit of the proposed structure would be, that we would have
everything that belongs to a release in one place: release notes, sources,
binaries. Currently the dist location of lang looks like the following:
RELEASE-NOTES.txt (of the 3.4 release)
- source
-- 2.6 sources
-- 3.4 sources
- binaries
-- 2.6 binaries
-- 3.4 binaries
No release notes for 2.6 :-(
Another thing I've never understood is, why it's called source (singular)
but binaries (plural).
I think it's because some projects release different binaries for
different architectures.
e.g. httpd.
I'm +1 to move to the new layout for any releases to come.
Benedikt
2015-06-23 18:48 GMT+02:00 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com:
On 6/23/15 9:05 AM, sebb wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 19:11, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
Sounds good to me. Would be more maven-style. However I'm not sure how
this change would affect clients referencing the absolute URLs of the
artifacts.
It won't affect Maven URLs.
Maybe we should change the layout for the releases to come and
leave anything we already have there as it is?
Yes, it should only apply to new releases.
That would get pretty ugly for [pool] and [dbcp] which maintain
multiple current release distros. Could probably be hacked with
symlinks or something but honestly I would rather spend time on
other things...
Phil
Benedikt
2015-06-22 7:18 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com:
I'm OK with a different layout.
Gary
Original message
From: sebb seb...@gmail.com
Date: 06/21/2015 17:09 (GMT-08:00)
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Subject: [ALL] re-organise dist directory layout?
I wonder whether the current directory layout is the most convenient.
At present, binaries and source are held in separate areas, and all
versions of each type are combined.
I think it might simplify matters to use a single directory per
version, with both source and binary together.
The current arrangement makes it a bit awkward when uploading the
files, as the different files have to be moved into the appropriate
folders. It also makes it awkward to delete obsolete versions, and
harder to rename files from the dist/dev to the dist/release area.
It's also a bit more awkard when checking releases, as two directorie
have to be downloaded.
Changing the mirror layout would not affect people using the download
pages.
It would look a bit different for users who browse the mirror folders,
but this will be a small minority of users, and it's pretty easy to
distinguish the source archives from the binary ones.
Thoughts?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
