Open Stack

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> I don't think we need to stop producing and publishing source code
> tarballs in the Go case, just because it's not the primary way people
> consume the code. Publication of the source code is something we need to
> do as part of the open source license we use, and some still consider
> tarball publication to be a clearer form of "publication" than keeping a
> git server up.

I'll buy that.  Overall, I don't think we are doing anything today
that is incompatible with what I see golang needing.  This is really a
side-issue that I have heard you, and maybe others, ask about in
general, so I included it to affirm the golang case. Making changes to
the general case is separate in my mind, but this may be a good time
to consider it in parallel since we're thinking about these things
again in detail.

> Beyond the source though, one question is whether we should build, sign
> and distribute binary artifacts (compiled code), or if tagging a source
> repo (and producing a source code tarball) is sufficient. And if we do
> distribute binaries, would we only do that for some deliverables (like
> the top ones that are supposed to be directly used by users) or for
> everything ?

I am not in favor of distributing binaries as a matter of course,
although from a purely selfish point of view I want the ability to do
that for a future CLI binary for Windows.  That CLI doesn't exist yet,
and I  do not see another reason (yet?) to include this in the initial
task list.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com