I've made this change in TRUNK. Thanks all for the lively discussion. On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > > > > > > > > >
