I'm not opposed to the idea of publishing these things although I'm not sure we need a separate repository. Why not just use GitHub pages on the existing repositories? -- Michael Mior mm...@apache.org
Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 07:21, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Hi, > > I see Calcite/Avatica "release vote" mails use links like the following: > > > You can read the release notes here: > > https://github.com/apache/calcite-avatica > /blob/branch-avatica-1.15/site/_docs/history.md > > That works, however > 1) GitHub formatting differs from > http://calcite.apache.org/avatica/docs/history.html > 2) It might be a good idea to share reports for review as well. > For instance, > 2.1) RAT report > 2.2) OWASP report > 2.3) JavaDoc preview (how do we review JavaDoc otherwise?) > 2.4) LICENSE files (e.g. to review third-party license updates) > > > I suggest we create a Git repository for that purpose (single repository to > host pages of Calcite and Avatica). > The idea is we enable GitHub pages for that repository, so we could use it > as a site preview. > We would likely want to put robots.txt there to prevent that site from > appearing in Google searches for Calcite. > > Note: I don't suggest to put "source" code there, rather I suggest we just > push generated site/reports under gh-pages branch. > As a plus, we could push reports like RAT, OWASP and things like that for > release review purposes. > > The process would be to build release artifacts as usual, then push site > and reports to that preview repository. > > I think it would simplify release review, and it would probably attract > people to validate releases (or provide suggestions re calcite.apache.org) > > Any thoughts? Objections? > > Vladimir
