The point was more about splitting documentation off on its own. Y'all can agree or disagree personally, but the simple matter is what users want and I know plenty of people would grab a dist w/o documentation if that were an option. Heck its what I do for most tools I grab by dist (Gradle, etc)

The second piece was really more about how to bundle jars and sources. I.e., at the moment "sources" are bundled quite differently from jars into the dists. "Sources" basically mimic a "source tarball" of the repo. So first there is a mismatch there. Second it does not contain generated sources. I think Sanne brings up an interesting point in this regard when he talks about patching. What is the intention of having the sources here? When we publish the sources along with the jars the intention is (generally) more clear: its there for people to use in IDEs mainly. But what about the sources in the dist. Because as we bundle them now they do not meet that intention well at all. If the intention is the same, then I think it makes more sense to include the sources-jars instead as I said above. If the intention is for patches and contributions, well... I think we need to question the validity of that intention I agree with Sanne that we should be directing people to git/github to fulfill that intention. And maybe it simply does not make sense to bundle the sources at all.