On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 12:33:43 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann 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.
The problem, in this particular case is that the RAT output published
in the RC version of the site reports violations on files not part of
the release.
Gilles
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
