I think this is a good idea. If you have to build a project from the
source and get errors, you never know, if the project is under heavy
development and not proper working (like missing or invalid build
instructions) or you just made some mistakes (missing libraries for
instance). Having a binary is a good way to avoid such problems, I
think. Another point is, that with binary drops, it is possible to
express some sort of progress in development, even in the sandbox. The
binary drops can for instance only contain the name and date, so there
will be no real release associated with these binaries.
-- Mirko
On 1/23/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Tong Fin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think Sandbox may have different meaning for other Apache project
>> developers: It is a place that developers develop the code to
>> test/try new
>> ideas/concepts. If the developed code is mature enough, it will be
>> moved to
>> the main stream build.
>
> I think that's what we mean, too.
Indeed, I thought the same but explained it more particularly...
> I didn't think that the sandbox would have "releases". I was
> imagining that people who wanted to try out sandbox code would just
> get it from SVN. Eventually, if there's something in the sandbox
> that's considered mature enough and makes sense to include the main
> stream SDK build, we'll move it to the uimaj code branch.
My thoughts about the sandbox release:
- when we think (or later also others) that own of the components in
the sandbox is "ready to use" we build a binary version of it and make
it available
at the download section.
- Users can browse all released sandbox components and use them out of
the box and must not build them self
-- Michael
