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) >> +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. (In a perfect world the assembly plugin could run a markdown to text conversion!) > 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 :) If the front page is fixed in git, then I'll change to a +1.
