Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo, mail # user - [VOTE] 1.5.0-RC2


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] 1.5.0-RC2
Drew Farris 2013-05-13, 13:29
This sounds perfect to me. Thanks for hashing this out.

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Okay, so, personally, my favorite combination of options is:
>
> Drop the assemble portion if possible, keep "source-release" and
> "binary-release" as the classifiers for maven, and rename the
> filenames to "-src.tar.gz" and "-bin.tar.gz" when mirroring and
> publishing on the website (doesn't even require re-signing). This
> keeps maven artifacts explicit, and follows conventions for download
> links from the mirrors/website. While maven has a convention for
> filenames, we don't have to be constrained by maven's filename
> conventions when we publish on the website/mirrors.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Drew Farris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because I
> >> don't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official*
> >> source release. However, there may be more to be done with the
> >> binary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option,
> >> keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2)
> >> maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what is
> >> published in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) not
> >> holding up the release.
> >
> >
> > Christopher, thanks for the detailed explanation.
> >
> > I believe I understand your goals regarding conventions (sticking to
> them),
> > but something seems a little strange about the 'source-release' tarball
> name
> > considering the Apache Maven project itself does not follow that
> convention
> > for their artifacts (see: http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi) --
> neither
> > do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd.
> >
> > That said, there appear to be a number of projects that >do< use
> > source-release (https://www.google.com/search?q=source-release.tar.gz),
> so
> > if it source-release.tar.gz is generally what's preferred over
> src.tar.gz,
> > let's go with it.
> >
> > Point taken about dist vs. bin -- I'd seen dist used in previous versons
> of
> > accumulo, but bin makes much more sense and seems to be a common
> convention.
> > The second most common convention seems to be leaving the type off the
> > tar.gz entirely, e.g: accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz - according to google,
> > binary-release.tar.gz seems to be used absolutely nowhere, so accumulo
> would
> > be certainly a trailblazer in this territory if we followed that naming
> > convention.
> >
> > Both of these facts aside, the oddest thing to me is the inclusion of
> > 'assemble' in the artifact name. I understand why it is there and why it
> is
> > necessary to assemble everything in a separate maven submodule, but
> changing
> > this should be as simple as changing the finalName parameter in the
> assembly
> > plugin configuration, shouldn't it? If we really must include something
> in
> > the artifact name, consider the more meaningful term 'distribution'
> instead
> > of 'assemble'? Then we wind up with something like:
> > accumulo-distribution-1.5.0-source-release.tar.gz (which is pretty
> > long-winded, isn't it?)
> >
> > So, preferring the terse, I'd vote for accumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz and
> > accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz or accumulo-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz
> >
> >
> >
>