commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Site Builds and Release Votes
Date Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:51:38 GMT
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr>wrote:

> Le 13/10/2013 17:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
> > 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 <bodewig@apache.org>
> 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
> > releases.
> >
> > 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?
>
> I agree the site build is orthogonal to release.
> The main thing we release is source code. Then on top of that we add
> some binaries, but it is already a by-product. The site itself is not
> something we should consider to be in the scope of the release.
>
>
 Agreed - the site build as a whole is for informative purposes during a
vote. If there are any bugs in a site, they never block the release as they
can be fixed out of band.

The only items that should be blockers on the site build are those included
in the distribution. I thought that was only the javadoc instead of the
whole site? I'd definitely consider a bad javadoc to be something we should
consider a new RC for, though it would depend on the severity. The cost of
building a new RC is greater than fixing a typo in javadoc.

Hen

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message