On 01/06/2010, Les Hazlewood <lhazlew...@apache.org> wrote: > > The download page links to reposity.apache.org. > > > > However repository.apache.org is not to be used for direct > > publication to end users, it is for publishing to the main maven repo. > > > This wasn't clear on the apache infrastructure page - it states that > repository.apache.org is part of the distribution infrastructure. Now > that we've been notified that this is not the case, we'll fix it as > soon as possible. Thanks!
Which page? Do you mean: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#distribution If so, I understand that is in the process of being updated. > > > Also, the downloads page does not have a link to the KEYS file. Nor > > does it have any documentation on how to use the sigs and hashes. > > > We'll fix that. Thanks! > > > > The downloads page should only link to the ASF mirrors, see for example: > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/photark/photark-downloads.html > > > > Also, there is no DISCLAIMER in any of the archive files. > > AIUI, Incubator releases MUST contain a disclaimer: > > > The branding link only specifies that podling websites must display > that disclaimer. That exact disclaimer is the very first paragraph on > the download page. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html#disclaimers says: "Podling web sites MUST include a clear disclaimer on their website and in all documentation (including releases) stating that they are in incubation." The important part here is "(including releases)". > AIUI, there is no mandate that a DISCLAIMER file must be included in the > actual packaged distribution. There is no requirement that the disclaimer be in a file called DISCLAIMER. However it must be present, as mentioned above. It is suggested that it is placed in a separate DISCLAIMER file as this makes it more obvious, and makes it easier to drop post-incubation. > Otherwise we assume the release would have been voted against. The lack of a DISCLAIMER was reported as part of the vote. I don't know why it was not considered blocking. > > On a side note, we're doing our best to adhere to all requirements, > and we're happy to do so. But it has been *incredibly* time consuming > and frustrating to try to interpret what should be step-by-step > courses of action to adhere to these requirements. > > Why isn't there a no-frills step-by-step, no room-for-error release > checklist that podlings can follow to guarantee that all required > criteria are met? It seems like such a checklist would be of the > highest priority for the Incubator to ensure that personal > interpretation is minimized or eliminated from the release process. I agree entirely. > This release management page [1] is incredibly long and full of policy > and reasoning, which is all well and good if one wants to understand > *why* these policies exist, but podlings really need a step-by-step > *how-to* guide that references the 'why' document so we can service > our communities as efficiently as possible. The 'why' guide is > fantastic to read at our leisure, but the 'how' document would be far > more useful to podlings when release time comes. Agreed it is long-winded. Toward the end it contains the section: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-disclaimer which says: "TODO: the incubator requires that users are informed that the by including a standard disclaimer. may be include in README, RELEASE_NOTES DISCLAIMER. It is recommended that it is not included in NOTICES" This is very badly worded. But given that NOTICE must be included in releases it implies that the disclaimer must also be included in releases. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
