On Dec 1, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote:
On 01/12/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 30, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> What Jim pointed out was docs/release_notes.txt -- it should
probably include the incubator disclaimer.
Yes. There is nothing in that file to indicate incubation.
It's an important doc, so the fact of incubation
should be clear.
So are we saying that having a DISCLAIMER file and the disclaimer in
the README at the top level is not "clear" enough or does "all
documentation" need to have the disclaimer as in all documentation
files?
I'm not saying that.
Would be good to clear this up and update the Disclaimer section to
say exactly where the specified disclaimer text should be put.
*shrug*. IMHO podling communities can (and should) think for
themselves a little...this stuff needs to be clear to the people that
download the stuff, you're responsible for assuring that...details of
doing that may depend on, ehm, other details.
This is the RELEASE NOTES for God's sake! Do you really
think that a document that details the release notes
for a codebase should not specify that the codebase
is in Incubation.
For the record, I'm personally not too fussed. Those disclaimers end
up in a gazillion places already. It's kinda hard already to get to a
release notes file without ignoring them once or twice.
Secondly, this is again an example of a mid-flight policy change/
added requirement. Let's continue to try not to have those, please,
it confuses, slows things down and can be frustrating for the podling
community.
cheers!
Leo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
