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). > >> >>
