So what do we need to do?
Fix it for this point release? Make an exception for old point
releases, and only fix it for 3.1?
Fix our latest point releases for each currently maintained branch?
My opinion is that we should fix all of the latest point releases, but
I personally won't be able to do the work -- as I mentioned a couple
months back, I'm in the middle of a go-live deployment of a three-year
project for the next month or two, and I'm maven-ignorant.
Second best would be to fix the 3.x branches.
Third best would be to fix only 3.1.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> So again, I am convinced by your argument and the history trail of reasoning
> behind it. Just feels that the solution that we might use (and that others
> are using) and the desired ideal are pretty far apart from each other.
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> Yeah I vaguely remember this discussion -
>> http://markmail.org/thread/njray5dbazwcdcts and I have to agree with Roy's
>> logic, which convinces me better than a mention of "policy" :-)
>>
>> Ok, so say we have a Maven build system that exports buildable source with
>> poms... which, considering the reliance on a public Maven repo for
>> dependencies may not be that "buildable" 6 months from now :-/ Even
>> open-source Apache-licensed (but not ASF-managed) packages may disappear.
>> How far can we go with that? (a good experiment would be to take a year old
>> existing ASF package and trying to build it, say Geronimo or something of
>> that level of complexity..)
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>>>
>>> It's one thing to state that it may not be a requirement to provide
>>> buildable source, but it's quite a stretch to claim that we do provide
>>> buildable source immediately after a message stating "It is
>>> practically impossible to do that as the build system is ... well,
>>> complex" Taken to extremes, you could say that a jar file full of
>>> classes is buildable source, since, with the right tools, you can
>>> decompile the class files back to java code.
>>>
>>> But if you want to say that we're meeting the source build
>>> requirement, consider this. It would mean that everyone voting +1 on a
>>> release has somehow thrown a home-grown build-system on top of the
>>> source release and successfully built it. Because that's the only
>>> way an evaluator can be sure that the release has met the condition
>>> and the release manager hasn't accidentally left out some required
>>> piece of source. We wouldn't say that we know that the release has a
>>> valid checksum without checking it ourselves or that the release has a
>>> valid signature without checking it ourselves. Same goes for
>>> building it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Every ASF release must contain a source package, which must be
>>>>> sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they have
>>>>> access to the appropriate platform and tools. The source package must
>>>>> be cryptographically signed by the Release Manager with a detached
>>>>> signature; and that package together with its signature must be tested
>>>>> prior to voting +1 for release. Folks who vote +1 for release may
>>>>> offer their own cryptographic signature to be concatenated with the
>>>>> detached signature file (at the Release Manager's discretion) prior to
>>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, re-reading the above and it doesn't state a need of a working
>>>> pom.xml or build.xml, just the source that is matching the binaries. In
>>>> this
>>>> respect we don't violate this. We do not provide a buildfile, but a Java
>>>> developer will be able to build the source regardless (e.g. by writing
>>>> build.xml himself, or importing sources in Eclipse).
>>>>
>>>> Andrus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Every ASF release must contain a source package, which must be
>>>>> sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they have
>>>>> access to the appropriate platform and tools. The source package must
>>>>> be cryptographically signed by the Release Manager with a detached
>>>>> signature; and that package together with its signature must be tested
>>>>> prior to voting +1 for release. Folks who vote +1 for release may
>>>>> offer their own cryptographic signature to be concatenated with the
>>>>> detached signature file (at the Release Manager's discretion) prior to
>>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, re-reading the above and it doesn't state a need of a working
>>>> pom.xml or build.xml, just the source that is matching the binaries. In
>>>> this
>>>> respect we don't violate this. We do not provide a buildfile, but a Java
>>>> developer will be able to build the source regardless (e.g. by writing
>>>> build.xml himself, or importing sources in Eclipse).
>>>>
>>>> Andrus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Aug 16 2010 - 19:15:24 UTC