> On Oct 19, 2023, at 7:48 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 16:31, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> I am -1 (i.e. - code commit veto) on any code change that causes the Log4j 2
>> web site url (https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/) to no longer work.
>> Since the staging site is a prelude to the live site I have to assume this
>> change will cause the main site url to change so I am -1.
>
> I am a big believer in "URLs are forever". If the public website URL
> were to change, I would vote -10.
>
>> Frankly I have no idea why you would want to have the working tree of
>> asf-site. The only thing that should ever be done in the branch is a merge
>> from asf-staging.
>
> That is the point: with `logging-log4j-site` you **can't** do a `git
> merge asf-staging`, because we might have several votes open and
> **only** one of the Scala, Kotlin, Log4j websites can be published.
See my other email…
>
>> As for closing the Nexus repo I always just used something like “Log4j
>> 2.x.y-rc1”. I am not sure why this is all that important to standardize as
>> long as it is clear what the release candidate is. IOW, I would be ok with
>> your proposal but would also be ok with a policy that says the comment has
>> to identify the rc version.
>
> It is not important to standardize, as long as we know what the repo
> contains, without looking into it. I happened to see 2 open and 2
> closed repos with no idea what they contain.
Yeah - I am sure I didn’t spell that out in the release page in confluence. It
just seemed sort of obvious.
Ralph
