Michael>Sounds like a great idea to me. I assume the Javadoc there is for
the
current snapshot?
Javadocs are built during the release candidate preparation.
Here's Git history:
https://github.com/apache/jmeter-site-preview/commits/gh-pages
I have just created JMeter RC2, and you can see the diff
Sounds like a great idea to me. I assume the Javadoc there is for the
current snapshot?
--
Michael Mior
mm...@apache.org
Le lun. 29 juil. 2019 à 18:06, Vladimir Sitnikov
a écrit :
>
> Here's "site preview" repository for Apache JMeter.
> I think it does simplify the review at virtually zero
Here's "site preview" repository for Apache JMeter.
I think it does simplify the review at virtually zero cost.
Any thoughts?
--- cut ---
You can read the New and Noteworthy section with some screenshots to
illustrate improvements and full list of changes at:
Julian>People reviewing the release can run those same reports
Julian>Those reports don’t necessarily need to be published.
Publishing the reports would simplify the review.
Of course people might ignore those reports, however the availability of
the reports does help with the review.
Vladimir
The web site process is not broken.
There are some minor licensing bugs. Let’s fix them. Let’s talk about how we
can improve the process. The existence of bugs doesn’t mean the process is
broken.
The release manager must review the licensing/security reports. People
reviewing the release can
Julian>And if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
It is broken. Both Avatica and Calcite releases violate ASF licensing
policy (at least as per https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html definition
of that)
Julian>This change would be adding another thing for people voting on
releases to review
Do
When I said “is there a significant problem” I meant an existing problem. I
don’t think there is an existing problem. And if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
This change would be adding another thing for people voting on releases to
review. I don’t want to add that burden.
Julian
> On Jul 2,
Michael>We regularly force push to the Calcite repo, so this is not a
Michael>restriction we face.
I suggest we just continue with that (fix small typos via amend/rebase)
Michael>The two repos are already separate so I don't think this is a big
Michael>departure
How are you going to check(test)
Sigh. More process, more technology. At a time when our release managers are
more burdened than ever.
Is there a significant problem where we publish a release and the site is
screwed up?
If so, let’s roll back the change to go to GitHub pages. When we generated the
site locally using Jekyll
Comments inline.
Le mar. 2 juil. 2019 à 16:17, Vladimir Sitnikov
a écrit :
>
> Micael>How so? Just delete the branch or rebase to delete the commits. I
> fail
> to see the complexity here.
>
> The complexity is not technical. It is INFRA who prohibits rebases.
> That is why I suggest we don't
Micael>How so? Just delete the branch or rebase to delete the commits. I
fail
to see the complexity here.
The complexity is not technical. It is INFRA who prohibits rebases.
That is why I suggest we don't put "build artifacts" into the main source
repositories.
In the worst case we just throw
>1) I guess we'd better have a single repository for both Avatica and Calcite
Why do we need both to be in the same repository if we're just using
it for testing?
>2) Pushing site/reports to Git repository (e.g. apache/calcite.git) would
>count towards repository size , thus it would impact
Michael>Why not just use GitHub pages
Michael>on the existing repositories?
1) I guess we'd better have a single repository for both Avatica and Calcite
2) Pushing site/reports to Git repository (e.g. apache/calcite.git) would
count towards repository size, thus it would impact every users of
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
a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I see Calcite/Avatica
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
