commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Site Builds and Release Votes
Date Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:35:55 GMT
Hi all

in the recent release vote for Compress Gary and I had very different
opinions on the importance of the site build for release candidates.

On 2013-10-13, Gary Gregory wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig <> wrote:

>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
>> date anyway.

> - Using the live site for the RC is a bad idea IMO because the source
> will have to be changed to update the version, for example "The
> current release is 1.5." and "Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5"
> and who knows what else will have to be changed. This means that what
> is in the RC is NOT building the 1.6 site, it is building a SNAPSHOT
> site.

To me creating the site is one of the completely unnecessary steps to
perform when cutting a release candidate.  Building and uploading the
site takes something > 15 minutes to me.  So far I have never published
the RC site when the RC was accepted but rather created a new site build
that contained the release date, updated the changes report with a
placeholder for the next release and so on.

We can - and should - update the site outside of any release anyway, so
to me the site content is completely irrelevant when I evaluate

I'll admit that this mirrors my suspicion that nobody looks at the site
build contained in the binary release anyway.  People use their
dependency manager of choice and the online docs in my experience.

How do others think about the release candidate site build?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message