incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion
Date Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:40:29 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Doug Cutting <>
> To:
> Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 6:24:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Exactly.  That's the key difference between a release and a website, we
> > can't take the release back.
> Good point.  We don't mirror the website on 3rd party sites like we do releases, 
> nor does HTTPD currently package pre-release docs as an archive that folks might 
> download and install locally.  So this is less risky than promoting complete 
> nightly builds.  But what if a project starts posting the nightly documentation 
> as a tarball, so that folks can access it while offline?

Well presumably it'd be made available to devs, not end users.  I don't
have a problem with that either, as long as the context is clear.

> So I still worry that it sets a bad precedent to permit publishing a significant 
> subset of a nightly build on a public website.  I as yet see no reason why it's 
> a problem to link to it from the developer portion of the site, like links to 
> subversion, except that developers might already be used to finding it on the 
> primary site.  Which is precisely why, when a new project asks how to post its 
> nightly documentation, we should tell them the best practice is to confine 
> pre-release stuff to the developer portion of the site.  There they can post it 
> as individual pages, archives, a big PDF or whatever.  We can keep this line 
> clear: if it's content destined for release but that hasn't been released, it 
> should only be available from the developer portion of the site.

We currently allow wikis to be used as public websites, so really we'd
need to write down a separate policy governing website content instead of
attempting to extend the release policy to cover it.  Mostly infra's position
is that as long as there is a clear audit trail between what's posted and
who created the content, and that the content is under ICLA, we're ok with it.

As far as it being a best practice to put build-related webpages under /dev,
that'd be fine with me personally, and I don't think the svn devs would have
a problem with that suggestion.  It's outright telling them no that I think
is uncalled for, whether based on the release policy or not.  There is
certainly prior practice by PMCs to the contrary (best practice 


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message