Agreed on all parts. This kind of script is very common practice to omit from an end-user release tarball.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 18:54, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org> >> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Sent: Wed, August 18, 2010 6:44:03 PM >> Subject: Re: bootstrap.sh in tarballs >> >> On 08/18/2010 03:33 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> > Nononono Doug. What they're discussing is perfectly ok and is done >> > in other projects. bootstrap.sh is a pre-configuration script not >> > actual thrift source. >> >> That's why I asked whether it was source code. > > You should probably take a look at the contents of bootstrap.sh for > yourself. It's a trivial little convenience script that creates the > configure-based build scripts and Makefiles. > >> If it's not considered such, then it shouldn't be included. We're proposing >>to declare it "non-source" primarily because it causes problems when included >>in releases. Otherwise we'd be happy to declare it part of the project's >>source, no? I understand there's precedent for this, and I'm fine excluding >>it, but, if there's another way that permits us to release more source-like >>stuff and still not confuse users, I think that'd be preferable. It's not >>black-and-white, source-or-non-source. > > Firstly what a project releases is up to them. How they manufacture > a tarball for release out of the pristine sources in svn is also > their call. All we ask is for a repeatable process. > > But my main attitude is let's not sweat the small stuff. If there's > good reason not to release the script, and there seems to be, then > let's not release it. It's causing more confusion than it's worth. > > > >
