On 8/22/14 11:12 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> We definitely want it to look good, but I would expect folks will find >> lots of stuff when they start poking around, so I wouldn't spend too >>much >> time on it. IMO, if a problem is found, it would be fine to modify the >> repo, make a local build, and drop new files on the website. > >Really? That would be releasing unreleased software in my books and a bit >no-no under Apache rules. While we don't vote on and release the web site >content but this content come from releasable software and is code so I >really don't think we can do that. Might be a good question for general@incubator. Mind if I ask there? It's an interesting case. If we were to put any other app on flex.a.o, we wouldn't be making source code available for the general public, but I suppose one could argue that with TDF, at least the example source is being made available, although not as a package. > >It's really not too hard to call a vote on this, and it's relatively easy >to compile and test, lets actually try and follow the Apache Way here. >Small gradual improvement and release as often as we can. I'm all for faster release cycles. I think it is 30 minutes minimum to validate the TDF RC. Given the potentially high traffic and profile TDF might get, we might be tempted to immediately fix any problem reported. Doing daily releases would be a little too fast for me. > >> And/Or, if you want to be really bold, we could set up Jenkins to >>deploy a >> nightly build to the site. >--1 to that, procedure aside, we don't want to be publishing potentially >very broken stuff to the web site. And given the number of times Jenkins >seems to stuff up, it seem very risky to me. Only successful builds would get pushed. Anyway, we'll see what others think. -Alex
