On 10/13/13 11:51 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Luc Maisonobe <luc.maison...@free.fr>wrote: > >> Le 13/10/2013 17:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit : >>> Hi all >>> >>> in the recent release vote for Compress Gary and I had very different >>> opinions on the importance of the site build for release candidates. >>> >>> On 2013-10-13, Gary Gregory wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current >>>>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd >>>>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release >>>>> date anyway. >>>> - Using the live site for the RC is a bad idea IMO because the source >>>> will have to be changed to update the version, for example "The >>>> current release is 1.5." and "Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5" >>>> and who knows what else will have to be changed. This means that what >>>> is in the RC is NOT building the 1.6 site, it is building a SNAPSHOT >>>> site. >>> To me creating the site is one of the completely unnecessary steps to >>> perform when cutting a release candidate. Building and uploading the >>> site takes something > 15 minutes to me. So far I have never published >>> the RC site when the RC was accepted but rather created a new site build >>> that contained the release date, updated the changes report with a >>> placeholder for the next release and so on. >>> >>> We can - and should - update the site outside of any release anyway, so >>> to me the site content is completely irrelevant when I evaluate >>> releases. >>> >>> I'll admit that this mirrors my suspicion that nobody looks at the site >>> build contained in the binary release anyway. People use their >>> dependency manager of choice and the online docs in my experience. >>> >>> How do others think about the release candidate site build? >> I agree the site build is orthogonal to release. >> The main thing we release is source code. Then on top of that we add >> some binaries, but it is already a by-product. The site itself is not >> something we should consider to be in the scope of the release. >> >> > Agreed - the site build as a whole is for informative purposes during a > vote. If there are any bugs in a site, they never block the release as they > can be fixed out of band. > > The only items that should be blockers on the site build are those included > in the distribution. I thought that was only the javadoc instead of the > whole site? I'd definitely consider a bad javadoc to be something we should > consider a new RC for, though it would depend on the severity. The cost of > building a new RC is greater than fixing a typo in javadoc.
+1 - though I think we should be carefully reviewing the javadoc in prep for releases and evaluation of RCs. The other exception to this rule is when components ship user guides. These should be updated for releases and should be evaluated as part of RC evaluation. But I agree strongly with the view that updating the public site can and should be viewed as a post-release activity. I also don't think we should be shipping full site contents in binary releases if somehow we have reverted to doing that. The xdoc/apt/whatever should be tagged and included as part of source release, but nits with it should not be release blockers, IMO. Phil > > Hen > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
