incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: Question about jar files in svn.
Date Thu, 19 Dec 2013 17:21:57 GMT
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Greg Trasuk <trasukg@stratuscom.com> wrote:
> We’re having a discussion over in dev@river.apache.org that was triggered by
> the recent discussion here about the Spark podling release.

The River discussions seem to be playing out productively.  Here are links for
other people who may be interested:

    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-432
    http://markmail.org/thread/abppti56ipnhnnfy

> To be more specific, there doesn’t seem to be any doubt that jars shouldn’t
> be included in source release packages, but would it be fair to say that
> they should also not be in the svn?

My understanding is that it is fine to store jars in version control outside
of the main source tree, analogous to providing a separate "-deps" download.
Between that and technical solutions which download deps on the fly such as
Ivy and Maven, I think that renders the question about whether binaries can
reside in the main source tree within version control moot.

But there's no strictly enforced policy AFAIK because we discourage people
from considering our source control repositories distribution points.  (Note
to podlings: this is why we make links to source control only available
through the developer portions of our websites, etc.)  That way we don't have
to be rigid about enforcing the policies which apply to releases at every
single commit point, even as we make best efforts to keep our trees clean.

FWIW, the same principles which give us a measure of flexibility about LICENSE
and NOTICE in version control could arguably apply to jar files as well.
Here's Board member Doug Cutting back in September on legal-discuss@apache:

    http://s.apache.org/GNP

    I think perhaps you're looking for clear lines where things are
    actually a bit fuzzy.  Certainly releases are official distributions
    and need LICENSE and NOTICE files.  That line is clear.  On the other
    hand, we try to discourage folks from thinking that source control is
    a distribution.  Rather we wish it to be considered our shared
    workspace, containing works in progress, not yet always ready for
    distribution to folks outside the foundation.  But, since we work in
    public, folks from outside the foundation can see our shared workspace
    and might occasionally mistake it for an official distribution.  We'd
    like them to still see a LICENSE and NOTICE file.  So it's not a
    hard-and-fast requirement that every tree that can possibly be checked
    out have a LICENSE and NOTICE file at its root, but it's a good
    practice for those trees that are likely to be checked out have them,
    so that folks who might consume them are well informed.

Again, policy flexibility with respect to version control becomes academic if
you can restructure the build.  Nevertheless, I hope that this additional
background is helpful for River's ongoing discussions.

Cheers,

Marvin Humphrey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message