Re: [jetty-dev] 7.2.2 and some other questions

[Joakim Erdfelt <joakim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The source artifacts (classifier: source) have a definite place in central as they prove useful for IDEs (source for in-editor javadoc source, and a place to step-through for debugging sessions).

The binary artifacts (the zip, tar.gz, and tar.bz2) can be used by other builds, and i suspect enough builds out there do use ours to warrant leaving them in the build / release / deploy for jetty.

The javadoc artifacts (classifier: javadoc) are redundant as a consequence of us producing the source artifacts (classifier: source).

They don't need to be created or deployed for any build or IDE to consume.

The source tarball is also not consumed by any other builds.

If a user wants to build the product, they pom contains the SCM tag that created that release.

And most of the IDE maven integration solutions have techniques to materialize projects from dependencies / artifacts / poms, all using this SCM tag information.

Even the repackaging folks use the SCM.

The question about the source tarballs shouldn't be "do we create them?", but rather "do we need to put them into central maven repo?"

I agree that we should be creating them, but they should be made available on our website, not maven central.

As for the bz2 generation, I use them. :-)  But then again, I'm strange, so don't hold that against the bz2 file format.

A few years ago, back in the dial-up generation, the bz2 file format had an important place.

Not so much anymore.

Also, bz2 is supported on just about every platform I've played with in the past 5 years.

I'm left with citing "tradition" or "everyone else does it" as the reason to keep generating it. (not a very strong reason for sure)

- Joakim

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

how are folks feeling about pulling a 7.2.2 release soon?

Also, a while back I added in a source distribution and a generated
version of the javadocs that could go into the binary distribution...A
side effect of this is the release process takes astronomically longer
to run because of some issues in the javadoc plugin.  Do you all see
value in keeping this in the distribution or could we go back to the
previous approach of proxying to the published documentation?

Lastly, I am thinking about not bothering with .bz2 formats in our
binary distributions...would it break anyones hearts to do away with
it?  I get a little fearful of shoving TOO much stuff into maven
central and that and dropping the source distro (who uses those
anymore).  I am thinking this would be fine because I am not aware of
anyone asking us for source distro's or the javadoc in the distro
while it was missing.  Source wise we have great tooling that puts the
source with the artifact, the javadoc with the artifact and anyone
that needs to build jetty can just pull from SVN like the rest of the
known universe since a source bundle at the distribution lvl is
effectly just an svn export anyway.

thoughts?

jesse


--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
jetty-dev mailing list
jetty-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-dev