On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 06:56:06 -0700, Apache wrote:
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.
This has been the case for months (for RNG); i.e. the live site
documented 1.0-SNAPSHOT.
Then if and when people vote to release 1.0, I'll fix the site
and the live version will document 1.1-SNAPSHOT...
There are ways around this though.
The question was indeed if we want to have archived sites
(i.e. a "read-only" site tied to a specific version)?
Note that this has absolutely
nothing to do with ASF policy.
Which is?
Gilles
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
