On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> As you may have seen, there is a long thread going on about the installer > and its deployment of a .xml file on the Apache Flex website. The main > question is: Is this .xml file considered “source material” and therefore > does it require a vote before being pushed to the Apache Flex website? > I haven't completely followed the discussion, but here's my opinion, assuming I understand everything correctly: The XML file is similar to a properties file or other config file that is shipped with a product. We ship one out with the release so people using the release will have an example, but, for the most part, they are expected to change it if they want to configure the installer to do something different than its "out of the box" configuration. If this understanding is correct, then it must be voted on before being released - i.e. included in a distribution that is an official Apache release. Things pushed to the website do not need to be voted on normally. The website is not an official Apache release. It is updated by checking things into a Subversion tree. It is peer-reviewed in the same manner that source code is when it is checked in. If a committer objects to a commit he/she can veto the commit and offer an alternative. If the community can't reach consensus about what should be committed then a vote may be required. I've never seen this happen. I've only rarely seen someone veto a commit. Usually the reason is obvious and there is no argument. I'm sure somewhere at Apache there has been a disputed commit that was hard to work out on a dev list, but I have not been part of that process. So, just in case the above didn't answer your questions, see below: The follow-up questions are: > 1) Can such a file even be pushed to the Apache Flex website or can it > only live in the dist folder? > Yes it can be pushed to the site. The one is the "dist" folder would act as an example. The two files are different files which go through different review processes before being published: one as part of a release, the other to the website. 2) Why does website content not require a vote before publishing (or is it > supposed to)? > Because it's not a release. It's peer-reviewed just like source code, but it's not "released." > 3) If not, what is the “line” that defines what requires a vote? Is it > that it is human-readable content? > If it's released it requires a vote. If not it does not - unless consensus cannot be reached about what the content should be. Greg > > Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >
