On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Jonathan Ellis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Matthieu Riou <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Jonathan Ellis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I've quoted ant's paste several times now. That is certainly how "Do > >> not include any links on the project website that might encourage > >> non-developers to download and use nightly builds..." reads to me. > > > > Then you're maybe reading too much to the letter. Look around, many > projects > > include links to their nightlies. All projects publish temporary binaries > > until a release is properly voted. Those are not advertised to users > > however. Do you see what would be the problem with having users > downloading > > those? > > Programmers (and lawyers!) are pedants by nature. :P > > If the letter is routinely disregarded because it is overly strict, > then the letter should be changed or it becomes difficult to tell > which letters are to be taken seriously. > The policy is fine, it explains what, not how, which is just right for a policy. If you read it again, you'll notice the "...that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds" part which is actually pretty well phrased. You're reading absolutes in something that's not. > Hence my suggestion that the decision of whether to link nightly > builds ought to be left up to individual projects (de jure as well as > de facto). > I believe this thread proves the exact opposite, starting with your email to cassandra-user :) Matthieu > > -Jonathan > (My bad, I didn't CC the listt at first on my last reply to Matthieu, > I didn't mean to take it private) >
