Because documentation is relevant to specific software versions
doesn't require us to subject web site documentation to incubator
release processes.
Web site documentation evolves. It should be decoupled, vote-wise,
from our release process of artifacts.
Regards,
Alan
On May 26, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com
> wrote:
I think it was a mistake to generate it and include it in the
release vote.
People will focus on this non-release artifact.
Perhaps. But considering that the site will be versioned and archived,
it's a secondary artifact of the release and deploying the site is
according to the Apache/Maven release best practices. I don't mind if
we need to make minor adjustments to the content to make everybody
happy; I'd rather pay now than later. If nobody votes against, we can
just gather the notes and fix the remaining issues in the next
release.
Kalle
On May 26, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
Additionally, the static sites will be versioned and archived unlike
the wiki, where there's in principle just one version of it.
Kalle
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlew...@apache.org
>
wrote:
Yeah, its mainly just for the auto-generated reports - much
easier to
let Maven generate and upload the site automagically than us
having to
piecemeal it and do each one individually.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Kalle Korhonen
<kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com
>
wrote:
Why do we generate a static maven site if we have a perfectly
good one
driven by the wiki?
For javadocs, info & quality reports and since it's simple.
Kalle
