Am 03/17/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Rob Weir<robw...@apache.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Andrea Pescetti<pesce...@apache.org>
wrote:
Dave Fisher wrote:
No links to snapshots from the website. It is ASF policy.
It is not ASF policy. It is the way we have interpreted it so far.
Policy is here http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what but as
already
discussed with the Board the key is that visitors pass through a page
that
makes it clear the dev builds are for our developers (meaning "anyone
contributing toward the development of our product"). So the policy issue
seems mostly solved to me. Feel free to ask me in private for discussion
links.
The problem is we cannot control what 3rd parties do. They can easily
deep-link to our dev build page directly, bypassing any "warning" page
that they might have.
Of course, they could do that today, to ci.apache.org, if they knew about
it.
When 3rd parties promote unofficial builds, we can run into the
following problems:
1) Users get a lower-quality product and this hurts our brand reputation
2) The developer builds may not meet all ASF release requirements,
e.g, checks on NOTICE and LICENSE files, so errors in this area can
hurt the ASF's brand reputation.
3) We do not offer upgrade notifications for developer builds. So
users can become "stuck" on an unmaintained product and be susceptible
to security issues, etc. This harms the user and our reputation.
So we have a strong incentive to ensure that developer releases are
not widely available to the public. I'm not sure what problem we're
solving that would recommend putting a link (direct or indirect) to
developer releases on our main download page, which gets *a million
visits per week*. We should be very careful about that.
Was there something that did not work with sharing the ci.apache.org
address on the dev and qa lists?
Other solutions:
1) Share the developer build link on the QA page, not the public
download page that gets 1 million visits per week. If the goal is to
have only project members download, then put it on a page that only
project members read ;-)
2) Add some authentication on the actual developer build download
page. Ideally, tie it having a BZ account.
3) Put a date-based expiration into developer builds, to discourage
long-term use.
Regards,
-Rob
I agree that we should not link the buildbot builds from the main download
page despite that this is where they were in the legacy OOo site. We can do
more to help the development community find them however.
There is and will no linking from the main download webpage. So, this
seems to be save.
We already have a link to the buildbot page from the project source page
(navigation Development -> Source Code) --
http://openoffice.apache.org/source.html
but it isn't highlighted much.
A bit more pimping the section is OK. But it should stay a bit
"invisible" as it is at the moment.
I think some wording changes on this page might help.
Right.
However, the main question is IMHO following:
Do we want to present the dev builds in a bit more structured way in
order to allow to point asking people to the CWIKI resp. CI webpage?
Regarding Andrea's first post inside this thread it seems to be already
approved (kind of) that we can link to these dev builds.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
