On 17 Dec 2010, at 14:50, Ross Gardler wrote: > 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. >
Okay I'll create and test a war with Tomcat, what other application servers should we test against? Cheers Kris
