On May 5, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> wrote:
> Option 2 makes sense to me. Same here. > - I don't think we should "release docs". Don't want to have to vote every > time we make a tweak to them. I'm a bit torn on this one. I agree that voting would be tedious, and the docs are already generated and available online. But on the other hand, the docs are an output of the project, and in theory should be as important as the code. Given that we don't change old docs very often at all, how about if we publish the docs in source form, but only for the current version (don't include any of the old versions, or edge: just 3.5.0 in this case). Effectively that means we release one version of the docs at a time, and they don't get re-released unless there is an extraordinary situation. Is this a decent compromise? Would it make sense to also publish the generated docs (just that version) in the same zip as a convenience? > - Should we do away with adding "rc1" to RCs? Presumably the existence of > the release branch should serve the purpose os people being able to test > the right thing. Once it's tested & it's vote time, we can't have "rc" in > the version. Yeah, stripping the "rc1" would technically seem to invalidate the vote because a new artifact would be generated, and there would be a new hash. How about if the contents of the zip don't have "rc1", but the filename does include the string "rc1"? So then promotion to dist is a move and a rename, but the contents stay the same. > - Voting might go smoother if we vote on platforms separately. E.g. I > wouldn't be willing to vote platforms that I've never touched. Yes. I can run "coho verify-archive" easy enough, but I'll probably do a functional test only of my primary platform (android).
