On Aug 31, 2004, at 6:32 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
| On Aug 31, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: | |>> What would be the best way to manage getting content onto the |>> web site? Post the doc to this list? (Or are attachments |>> completely annoying?) |> |> http://db.apache.org/communication.html says "no" to attachments. |> | | It recommends "in-lining" patches when you can. However, the | recommendation to "provide a URL for retrieval" is somewhat | bothersome as there are IP issues with grabbing patches from | URLs--it's much better for the ASF to receive a patch via the | mailing list. Sending a patch to the list is a much clearer way | (legally) to implicitly grant the ASF the right to use the code.
So in the case of docs, would it work better to include the document in the body of the email itself? Initially I would expect short documents to be the rule of thumb.
If somebody writes a tome too large for the body of email, perhaps they could post a note to the list asking how to best handle it -- and wouldn't that be cool!
Well, typically, by the time a person gets to a point where they're contributing patches/documents too big for the email list, that person would have already gotten commit access, so they could just commit the documents right into the repository.
-Fitz
