Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <477B158A.2010406@dubioso.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:39:38 +0100
From: Roland Weber <ossfwot@dubioso.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071204 SeaMonkey/1.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [docs] Release Distribution
References: <f470f68e0801011431n4e2b5a4cw99a83f34b40fe31d@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f470f68e0801011431n4e2b5a4cw99a83f34b40fe31d@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> i've taken a stab at a first draft of documenting release distribution
> (http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-distribution)

I was just wondering about the write permissions for
all files. Surely the release artifacts should never
be modified, as mentioned in later sections. So it
would be sufficient to keep those read-only, as long
as there is write permission on the directory to remove
them? Well, it's not policy and everybody does it that
way, so I guess there's no need to mention that.

Could you rephrase the term "top level subdirectory"
to something that isn't self-contradictory? ;-)
Just dropping the "top level" part should be OK.

In the "Archiving Old Releases" section, should people
verify that an artifact is in the archive before deleting
it from the dist/ directory? That would only come into
play if a release artifact is withdrawn within hours,
before it has been automatically archived. So maybe
mention it only in "Dealing With A Defect"?

cheers,
  Roland


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org