This sounds perfect to me. Thanks for hashing this out. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Okay, so, personally, my favorite combination of options is: > > Drop the assemble portion if possible, keep "source-release" and > "binary-release" as the classifiers for maven, and rename the > filenames to "-src.tar.gz" and "-bin.tar.gz" when mirroring and > publishing on the website (doesn't even require re-signing). This > keeps maven artifacts explicit, and follows conventions for download > links from the mirrors/website. While maven has a convention for > filenames, we don't have to be constrained by maven's filename > conventions when we publish on the website/mirrors. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because I > >> don't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official* > >> source release. However, there may be more to be done with the > >> binary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option, > >> keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2) > >> maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what is > >> published in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) not > >> holding up the release. > > > > > > Christopher, thanks for the detailed explanation. > > > > I believe I understand your goals regarding conventions (sticking to > them), > > but something seems a little strange about the 'source-release' tarball > name > > considering the Apache Maven project itself does not follow that > convention > > for their artifacts (see: http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi) -- > neither > > do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd. > > > > That said, there appear to be a number of projects that >do< use > > source-release (https://www.google.com/search?q=source-release.tar.gz), > so > > if it source-release.tar.gz is generally what's preferred over > src.tar.gz, > > let's go with it. > > > > Point taken about dist vs. bin -- I'd seen dist used in previous versons > of > > accumulo, but bin makes much more sense and seems to be a common > convention. > > The second most common convention seems to be leaving the type off the > > tar.gz entirely, e.g: accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz - according to google, > > binary-release.tar.gz seems to be used absolutely nowhere, so accumulo > would > > be certainly a trailblazer in this territory if we followed that naming > > convention. > > > > Both of these facts aside, the oddest thing to me is the inclusion of > > 'assemble' in the artifact name. I understand why it is there and why it > is > > necessary to assemble everything in a separate maven submodule, but > changing > > this should be as simple as changing the finalName parameter in the > assembly > > plugin configuration, shouldn't it? If we really must include something > in > > the artifact name, consider the more meaningful term 'distribution' > instead > > of 'assemble'? Then we wind up with something like: > > accumulo-distribution-1.5.0-source-release.tar.gz (which is pretty > > long-winded, isn't it?) > > > > So, preferring the terse, I'd vote for accumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz and > > accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz or accumulo-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz > > > > > > >
