That's good, but, I think we should agree on whether release docs are part
of a release. It's important to reasoning about releases.

To be clear, you're suggesting that, say, right now you are OK with
updating this page with a few more paragraphs?
http://spark.apache.org/docs/2.1.0/streaming-programming-guide.html  Even
though those paragraphs can't be in the released 2.1.0 doc source?

First, what is everyone's understanding of the answer?

The only official guidance I can find is
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#distribute-other-artifacts ,
which suggests that docs need to be released similarly, with signatures.
Not quite the same question, but strongly implies they're treated like any
other source that is released with a vote.

------

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO DISTRIBUTE OTHER ARTIFACTS IN ADDITION TO THE
SOURCE PACKAGE?
<http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#distribute-other-artifacts>

ASF releases typically contain additional material together with the source
package. This material may include documentation concerning the release but
must contain LICENSE and NOTICE files. As mentioned above, these artifacts
must be signed by a committer with a detached signature if they are to be
placed in the project's distribution directory.

Again, these artifacts may be distributed only if they contain LICENSE and
NOTICE files. For example, the Java artifact format is based on a
compressed directory structure and those projects wishing to distribute
jars must place LICENSE and NOTICE files in the META-INF directory within
the jar.

Nothing in this section is meant to supersede the requirements defined here
<http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what> and here
<http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain>
 that all releases be primarily based on a signed source package.

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:50 AM Nick Pentreath <nick.pentre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The website updates for ML QA (SPARK-20507) are not *actually* critical
> as the project website certainly can be updated separately from the source
> code guide and is not part of the release to be voted on. In future that
> particular work item for the QA process could be marked down in priority,
> and is definitely not a release blocker.
>
> In any event I just resolved SPARK-20507, as I don't believe any website
> updates are required for this release anyway. That fully resolves the ML QA
> umbrella (SPARK-20499).
>
>>
>>

Reply via email to