henrikingo commented on issue #56:
URL: https://github.com/apache/otava/issues/56#issuecomment-3042902507
As I caused this exchange in a review comment, let me join directly and
rephrase: The question is whether:
a) ASF requires us to prominently in our documentation cover installation
(or in any case, download and untar) from the official release, which is the
source tarfile. OR
b) it is ok to document the most common way to install the project - in our
case `pip install ...` and in some other case compiled binaries or a maven
repository.
It seems from your answer b is ok as long as the derived (or, convenience)
installation is based on an official ASF source release. This of course is the
logical/natural answer too, now that I think about it.
And most crucially, in that case #68 indeed satisfies this issue.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@otava.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
