On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:12 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > The staging site appeared to be part of the vote as it was not > specifically excluded.
This was a mistake - it probably should have been excluded. AFAICT, staging sites are _not_ considered release artifacts because they're never shipped/distributed. It is there for reference only. > Regardless, I think it's important that when an Incubator project > wants to do a release, consumers need to be fully aware that it is not > a normal ASF release. Seems to me that this is why the branding > guidelines are there. > I agree that there are some website issues that have no bearing on a release. > > However IMO ensuring that Incubator projects are clearly identified as > such is fundamental to allowing releases from Incubator projects. We reference the Incubator in a lot of places on the site. And we'll work on making that more prevalent as soon as possible, but as I understand it, this is not considered release criteria. Until it is, it doesn't seem that a release should be prohibited. The only thing that should prevent a release IMO would be violations of _concrete_ release criteria. Saying that "The Incubator isn't mentioned in a prevalent area of the website", while maybe true, is a nebulous statement - it is purely based on interpretation. I think it's fine to have branding as release criteria, but it needs to be explicit so we can know exactly what the problem is and how to fix it (e.g. "Incubator must be linked to from the page graphic header" or "Must be linked as a root-level navigation element in the site's nav bar", etc). Until that happens, it is unfair to prevent a release based on personal interpretation when all other criteria have been met. - Les --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
