On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 03:17:02 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
On 14 Sep 2016 3:32 p.m., "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
The site can, and will be fixed, "live" (as it must be done anyway for
the link to the Javadoc, see below).


I think it's good we keep the practice of reviewing the website as part of an RC, as otherwise it won't happen, but I would be with you that it should not be required to cancel an RC just to fix something in src/site. However we might need a documented routine for how to update the site independently without spamming the site with SNAPSHOT info (e.g. a branch from the latest
release)

I'm not sure I got what you mean.
Anyways, it looks like it's something to be fixed at the "COMMONSSITE"
level.

+1 mvn apache-rat:check (if using ignores from <reporting>)
I don't understand the "if" clause.
Report is clean when generated as part of "mvn site".

Yes, I noticed. I am special in that I run the apache-rat:check target
outside (to see if it fails), but that does not pick up config within
<reporting> :)

It was developed within the CM repository but the code was never
released as part of CM.

Right, no point then if it has not been released before within Commons.

Are those a mandatory part of the distribution?
Commons Math was never released with those files.

No (hence -0, not -1), just I would prefer them in. In .md format they are slightly less useful within the downloaded archives than on GitHub, I agree.

As I pointed out to Gary, your noticing that has misled him
to believe that something ugly would come out of RC1, whereas
it was never agreed that components _must_ ship with those files.
From what I can only guess at this point, they were added in a
purely aesthetic gesture (toward Github users).

(In a perfect world the assembly plugin could run a markdown to text
conversion!)

That would make much sense (for applying a common policy); it
could be part of the generated "RELEASE-NOTES.txt".

I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
Github.

That is your choice as RM as long as the RC get at least +3 :)

As I said in my answer to Gary, "my" release process is _not_
hard.
And I'll repeat it, no problem, to prove that point.

If the front page is fixed in git, then I'll change to a +1.

What do you mean by "front page"?


Gilles


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Reply via email to