On 8 December 2016 at 09:33, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > On 2016-12-08, Gilles wrote: > >> Hi. > >> I've just noticed a small problem in the (staged) web site >> submitted for the release of Commons RNG v1.0: >> http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC6-site/rat-report.html > >> Since this must be fixed in the regenerated site will >> not reflect the released version number, why do we >> actually have to vote on the site? > > IMHO we don't really vote on the site. For all the COMPRESS releases > I've always said "this is not the site I'm going to publish when the > release is final" and it's been fine. We can publish the site > independently of releases and maybe don't do that often enough. > > The site is part of the vote template as it provides access to a couple > of reports that may be interesting to people voting. A RAT report that > shows a violation is a reason to vote with -1. But that doesn't mean we > are voting on the site.
Agreed. Also it's useful to have people review the site in case there are any obvious mistakes in documentation. > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
