[ALL] Why is the component's web site part of the release vote?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[ALL] Why is the component's web site part of the release vote?

Gilles Sadowski
Hi.

I've just noticed a small problem in the (staged) web site
submitted for the release of Commons RNG v1.0:
   
http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC6-site/rat-report.html

Since this must be fixed in the regenerated site will
not reflect the released version number, why do we
actually have to vote on the site?

Regards,
Gilles


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Why is the component's web site part of the release vote?

Stefan Bodewig
On 2016-12-08, Gilles wrote:

> Hi.

> I've just noticed a small problem in the (staged) web site
> submitted for the release of Commons RNG v1.0:
>   http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC6-site/rat-report.html

> Since this must be fixed in the regenerated site will
> not reflect the released version number, why do we
> actually have to vote on the site?

IMHO we don't really vote on the site. For all the COMPRESS releases
I've always said "this is not the site I'm going to publish when the
release is final" and it's been fine. We can publish the site
independently of releases and maybe don't do that often enough.

The site is part of the vote template as it provides access to a couple
of reports that may be interesting to people voting. A RAT report that
shows a violation is a reason to vote with -1. But that doesn't mean we
are voting on the site.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Why is the component's web site part of the release vote?

sebb-2-2
On 8 December 2016 at 09:33, Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2016-12-08, Gilles wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>
>> I've just noticed a small problem in the (staged) web site
>> submitted for the release of Commons RNG v1.0:
>>   http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC6-site/rat-report.html
>
>> Since this must be fixed in the regenerated site will
>> not reflect the released version number, why do we
>> actually have to vote on the site?
>
> IMHO we don't really vote on the site. For all the COMPRESS releases
> I've always said "this is not the site I'm going to publish when the
> release is final" and it's been fine. We can publish the site
> independently of releases and maybe don't do that often enough.
>
> The site is part of the vote template as it provides access to a couple
> of reports that may be interesting to people voting. A RAT report that
> shows a violation is a reason to vote with -1. But that doesn't mean we
> are voting on the site.

Agreed.
Also it's useful to have people review the site in case there are any
obvious mistakes in documentation.

> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Why is the component's web site part of the release vote?

jochen-2
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've just noticed a small problem in the (staged) web site
> submitted for the release of Commons RNG v1.0:
>   http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC6-site/rat-report.html
>
> Since this must be fixed in the regenerated site will
> not reflect the released version number, why do we
> actually have to vote on the site?

In my opinion: We do not vote on the site. Which is why deficiencies
in the proposed site aren't blocking a release.

That being said:

a) The proposed site may be helpful for the release vote, if for no
other reasons than the
     RAT report.

b) The proposal leads to people verifying the site, which they usually
wouldn't do.


Jochen


http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Why is the component's web site part of the release vote?

Ralph Goers
Typically the site is voted on during the release when it is built by Maven. This is because it will put the version on the site and if it isn’t the release it will have SNAPSHOT in the version, which means you are documenting stuff publicly that isn’t really available yet.  There are ways around this though.  Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with ASF policy.

Ralph


> On Dec 8, 2016, at 4:33 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I've just noticed a small problem in the (staged) web site
>> submitted for the release of Commons RNG v1.0:
>>  http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC6-site/rat-report.html
>>
>> Since this must be fixed in the regenerated site will
>> not reflect the released version number, why do we
>> actually have to vote on the site?
>
> In my opinion: We do not vote on the site. Which is why deficiencies
> in the proposed site aren't blocking a release.
>
> That being said:
>
> a) The proposed site may be helpful for the release vote, if for no
> other reasons than the
>     RAT report.
>
> b) The proposal leads to people verifying the site, which they usually
> wouldn't do.
>
>
> Jochen
>
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Why is the component's web site part of the release vote?

Gilles Sadowski
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 06:56:06 -0700, Apache wrote:
> Typically the site is voted on during the release when it is built by
> Maven. This is because it will put the version on the site and if it
> isn’t the release it will have SNAPSHOT in the version, which means
> you are documenting stuff publicly that isn’t really available yet.

This has been the case for months (for RNG); i.e. the live site
documented 1.0-SNAPSHOT.
Then if and when people vote to release 1.0, I'll fix the site
and the live version will document 1.1-SNAPSHOT...

> There are ways around this though.

The question was indeed if we want to have archived sites
(i.e. a "read-only" site tied to a specific version)?

> Note that this has absolutely
> nothing to do with ASF policy.

Which is?

Gilles

>
> Ralph
>
>
>> On Dec 8, 2016, at 4:33 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Gilles
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I've just noticed a small problem in the (staged) web site
>>> submitted for the release of Commons RNG v1.0:
>>>  
>>> http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC6-site/rat-report.html
>>>
>>> Since this must be fixed in the regenerated site will
>>> not reflect the released version number, why do we
>>> actually have to vote on the site?
>>
>> In my opinion: We do not vote on the site. Which is why deficiencies
>> in the proposed site aren't blocking a release.
>>
>> That being said:
>>
>> a) The proposed site may be helpful for the release vote, if for no
>> other reasons than the
>>     RAT report.
>>
>> b) The proposal leads to people verifying the site, which they
>> usually
>> wouldn't do.
>>
>>
>> Jochen
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Why is the component's web site part of the release vote?

Gilles Sadowski
In reply to this post by jochen-2
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 12:33:43 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I've just noticed a small problem in the (staged) web site
>> submitted for the release of Commons RNG v1.0:
>>  
>> http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC6-site/rat-report.html
>>
>> Since this must be fixed in the regenerated site will
>> not reflect the released version number, why do we
>> actually have to vote on the site?
>
> In my opinion: We do not vote on the site. Which is why deficiencies
> in the proposed site aren't blocking a release.
>
> That being said:
>
> a) The proposed site may be helpful for the release vote, if for no
> other reasons than the
>      RAT report.

The problem, in this particular case is that the RAT output published
in the RC version of the site reports violations on files not part of
the release.

Gilles

>
> b) The proposal leads to people verifying the site, which they
> usually
> wouldn't do.
>
>
> Jochen
>
>
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Why is the component's web site part of the release vote?

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski

> On Dec 8, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 06:56:06 -0700, Apache wrote:
>> Typically the site is voted on during the release when it is built by
>> Maven. This is because it will put the version on the site and if it
>> isn’t the release it will have SNAPSHOT in the version, which means
>> you are documenting stuff publicly that isn’t really available yet.
>
> This has been the case for months (for RNG); i.e. the live site
> documented 1.0-SNAPSHOT.
> Then if and when people vote to release 1.0, I'll fix the site
> and the live version will document 1.1-SNAPSHOT...
>
>> There are ways around this though.
>
> The question was indeed if we want to have archived sites
> (i.e. a "read-only" site tied to a specific version)?
>
>> Note that this has absolutely
>> nothing to do with ASF policy.
>
> Which is?
>

A release at Apache is a release of source code. The binaries are a convenience to the user as is the site. If the source for the web site is part of your source code then technically you are reviewing it as part of the release, just as you might validate that the binaries actually work. But you could document the site completely in the Apache CMS and never “release” it - just publish it.  The content of the web site does have to be licensed under the Apache license though.

Ralph



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Why is the component's web site part of the release vote?

Stian Soiland-Reyes
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
That sounds like not a problem at all as RAT passes on the RC.
Just regenerate the site after releasing. (We have to verify download page
manually anyway).

(Perhaps building the site from the RC's tar-ball rather than the "dirty"
mvn tree post release is safer)


I think it would only block a release vote if the site showed something
wrong that also affects the code or jars; e.g. a very broken javadoc or an
actual RAT violation. Anything else can be fixed post release (but
comitters to master of course :-)

On 8 Dec 2016 4:21 pm, "Gilles" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 12:33:43 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I've just noticed a small problem in the (staged) web site
>>> submitted for the release of Commons RNG v1.0:
>>>   http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC6-site/rat-report.html
>>>
>>> Since this must be fixed in the regenerated site will
>>> not reflect the released version number, why do we
>>> actually have to vote on the site?
>>>
>>
>> In my opinion: We do not vote on the site. Which is why deficiencies
>> in the proposed site aren't blocking a release.
>>
>> That being said:
>>
>> a) The proposed site may be helpful for the release vote, if for no
>> other reasons than the
>>      RAT report.
>>
>
> The problem, in this particular case is that the RAT output published
> in the RC version of the site reports violations on files not part of
> the release.
>
> Gilles
>
>
>> b) The proposal leads to people verifying the site, which they usually
>> wouldn't do.
>>
>>
>> Jochen
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/
>> 2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Why is the component's web site part of the release vote?

sebb-2-2
On 10 December 2016 at 10:54, Stian Soiland-Reyes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That sounds like not a problem at all as RAT passes on the RC.
> Just regenerate the site after releasing. (We have to verify download page
> manually anyway).
>
> (Perhaps building the site from the RC's tar-ball rather than the "dirty"
> mvn tree post release is safer)

+1

Or use a clean checkout of the tag, which should be the same thing as
the tar-ball.

>
> I think it would only block a release vote if the site showed something
> wrong that also affects the code or jars; e.g. a very broken javadoc or an
> actual RAT violation. Anything else can be fixed post release (but
> comitters to master of course :-)
>
> On 8 Dec 2016 4:21 pm, "Gilles" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 12:33:43 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've just noticed a small problem in the (staged) web site
>>>> submitted for the release of Commons RNG v1.0:
>>>>   http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC6-site/rat-report.html
>>>>
>>>> Since this must be fixed in the regenerated site will
>>>> not reflect the released version number, why do we
>>>> actually have to vote on the site?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In my opinion: We do not vote on the site. Which is why deficiencies
>>> in the proposed site aren't blocking a release.
>>>
>>> That being said:
>>>
>>> a) The proposed site may be helpful for the release vote, if for no
>>> other reasons than the
>>>      RAT report.
>>>
>>
>> The problem, in this particular case is that the RAT output published
>> in the RC version of the site reports violations on files not part of
>> the release.
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>>> b) The proposal leads to people verifying the site, which they usually
>>> wouldn't do.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jochen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/
>>> 2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]