On 17/12/2010 14:32, Kris Popat wrote:
On 17 Dec 2010, at 14:10, Scott Wilson wrote:
On 17 Dec 2010, at 13:44, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 17/12/2010 10:56, Scott Wilson wrote:
On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:00, Kris Popat wrote:
...
How are we actually releasing it in terms of binaries for
download?
For release the source package will need to be compressed
both as .tar.gz and .zip.
Do we want a binary release as well?
I think it would require a bit more thought and lots more
testing - how about we stick to source packages for 0.9.0 and
think about how we'd create a binary distrib for future
releases?
I thought we were intending to do a binary distribution. A
release is not a release without a binary in my opinion (not sure
of ASF policy, I can check if you want me to).
We could distribute the generic WAR file easily enough - I'm just
not sure how it would work with running in
Tthe Apache Incubator Release Management docs say that the source
release is central to the release and that we may wish to distribute
a binary package too. It doesn't suggest that we have to do
binaries. However I'm not sure what best practice is here and what
we wish to do as a project.
That's useful thanks. My experience is that there is always a binary
release alongside the source release. The idea is to provide as low a
barrier to entry as possible for people wanting to experiment.
Lets go with Scotts suggestion to distribute a WAR alongside a binary.
The standalone version is only to make it easy for developers so there
is no need to worry about a binary of that.
Ross
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-types
--
[email protected]
@rgardler
