Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=PvjsMTGk9DwxfwovPDeenBU3vdZUj9H8pKYKizRWOjOWjCvhNb5TVVXN/cXDT/3iNCXVam9GqMmJneEz42fJAbmqw1MwLzl/dBO5p/vMUSRSTuFOMiekvNfHpYdJ1L4QMNljTRGTC9bKfzN6v6yV7CGWSGhdKgLiwl9ZtdOcCDU=;
Message-ID: <275889.96373.qm@web54405.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <4dc6c9040912020948j5ccbb31wf61da8ee3c5e9124@mail.gmail.com>
  <4B197A7C.4090809@apache.org>
  <55afdc850912041508w152e51adk588c2b33fd91a91f@mail.gmail.com>
  <4B199F23.5010503@apache.org>
  <55afdc850912041627sdfb6839od0866b86906bc8bd@mail.gmail.com>
  <4B19B285.3050105@apache.org> <4B1A57A8.3030003@xbc.nu>
  <4B1D4D95.5050004@apache.org> <4B1D68B7.8020506@rowe-clan.net>
  <4B1D6CF8.3080908@apache.org>
 <4239a4320912071434r3d19f104qe95e6f40c1d40671@mail.gmail.com>
 <994525.6899.qm@web54409.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4B1D8EA2.9020501@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:40:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion
To: general@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4B1D8EA2.9020501@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

----- Original Message ----

> From: Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 6:24:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion
> 
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Exactly.  That's the key difference between a release and a website, we
> > can't take the release back.
> 
> Good point.  We don't mirror the website on 3rd party sites like we do releases, 
> nor does HTTPD currently package pre-release docs as an archive that folks might 
> download and install locally.  So this is less risky than promoting complete 
> nightly builds.  But what if a project starts posting the nightly documentation 
> as a tarball, so that folks can access it while offline?

Well presumably it'd be made available to devs, not end users.  I don't
have a problem with that either, as long as the context is clear.

> 
> So I still worry that it sets a bad precedent to permit publishing a significant 
> subset of a nightly build on a public website.  I as yet see no reason why it's 
> a problem to link to it from the developer portion of the site, like links to 
> subversion, except that developers might already be used to finding it on the 
> primary site.  Which is precisely why, when a new project asks how to post its 
> nightly documentation, we should tell them the best practice is to confine 
> pre-release stuff to the developer portion of the site.  There they can post it 
> as individual pages, archives, a big PDF or whatever.  We can keep this line 
> clear: if it's content destined for release but that hasn't been released, it 
> should only be available from the developer portion of the site.

We currently allow wikis to be used as public websites, so really we'd
need to write down a separate policy governing website content instead of
attempting to extend the release policy to cover it.  Mostly infra's position
is that as long as there is a clear audit trail between what's posted and
who created the content, and that the content is under ICLA, we're ok with it.

As far as it being a best practice to put build-related webpages under /dev,
that'd be fine with me personally, and I don't think the svn devs would have
a problem with that suggestion.  It's outright telling them no that I think
is uncalled for, whether based on the release policy or not.  There is
certainly prior practice by PMCs to the contrary (best practice 
notwithstanding).


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