On 14 August 2014 17:33, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/14/2014 05:25 PM, Justin Ross wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Robbie Gemmell < >> [email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On 14 August 2014 15:23, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> With 0.30 beta, we have the -bin packages from the maven output. The >>>> qpid-tools source archive does also include the java source of Fraser's >>>> tools. >>>> >>>> >>> I'm unsure whether the existing qpid-tools source archive should now >>> include the Java stuff or not. I presume you just archived the whole >>> tools >>> directory now and so the Ruby bits are also in there too? (I havent >>> looked >>> yet, but I plan to go through and test the beta in the morning) >>> >>> On the one hand they are all tools and this gives us less archives to >>> handle than adding a 'java qmf tools' archive, but on the other it means >>> adding more bits into the long standing archive which has only had the >>> python tools in it, partly going against the idea of people getting only >>> what they want (or might be used to getting). The Java bits also aren't >>> normally that likely to be consumed using their source, whereas the >>> Python >>> and Ruby bits would be. >>> >>> Anyone else have more definite thoughts on this? :) >>> >> >> >> Sorry, one more of mine: I don't really care for having the java code >> jammed in there. (It's deranged project nesting, IMO.) However, it does >> reflect the source tree's current organization. I'm definitely cool with >> breaking it out. >> > > I would much prefer it to be separate. > > I hadn't even realised it was there because what I always do is run the > setup.py from the root of the archive, and that doesn't do anything with > the ruby or java within the src directory. >
I have always concentrated on the full source tar and the individual java component binaries until this discussion, so I probably wouldnt have noticed either for the beta if Justin hadnt pointed it out. > I would leave the ruby out entirely. Does it even get used by > anyone/anything at present? > > I'm not sure, but it certainly doesn't seem to get mentioned much. I expect it would struggle greatly for votes if archived on its own, which seems like a reason to leave it out. Robbie
