Typically the site is voted on during the release when it is built by Maven. This is because it will put the version on the site and if it isn’t the release it will have SNAPSHOT in the version, which means you are documenting stuff publicly that isn’t really available yet. There are ways around this though. Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with ASF policy.
Ralph > On Dec 8, 2016, at 4:33 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > >> 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? > > In my opinion: We do not vote on the site. Which is why deficiencies > in the proposed site aren't blocking a release. > > That being said: > > a) The proposed site may be helpful for the release vote, if for no > other reasons than the > RAT report. > > b) The proposal leads to people verifying the site, which they usually > wouldn't do. > > > Jochen > > > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
