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

[Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm OK killing the javadoc distro.   The proxy to eclipse works OK,
plus source and individual javadoc artefacts are available and most
IDEs are able to produce javadoc on the fly from that.

I think the full source distro can also go.   Source is available in
SCM and as individual artefacts.

I don't care much about bz2, but it is nice to have less to upload
when you are building behind an asymmetric network connection.

cheers








On 2 December 2010 22:53, Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 15:47, Chad La Joie <lajoie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Just so I'm clear, you mean you wouldn't do an aggregate source bundle but
>> would still have the source artifacts (so that things like Eclipse can still
>> display the source when you open types/implementations)?
>
> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/eclipse/jetty/jetty-distribution/7.2.1.v20101111/jetty-distribution-7.2.1.v20101111-src.zip
>
> That is the specific artifact I am talking about doing away with....I
> added it back into the build a release to three ago and I question
> that now.  The per artifact source artifacts and javadoc artifacts are
> required and not about to be done away with.
>
> the specific javadoc bit I am talking about getting rid of is the one
> under the javadoc directory of the distribution pulled from that same
> location above....its a pain to generate for that distribution and I
> question its value anymore since the proxy approach pointing to
> eclipse.org seemed to be working fine for folks.
>
> cheers!
> jesse
>
>> On 12/2/10 4:05 PM, Jesse McConnell 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
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Chad La Joie
>> http://itumi.biz
>> trusted identities, delivered
>> _______________________________________________
>> jetty-dev mailing list
>> jetty-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> jetty-dev mailing list
> jetty-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-dev
>