----- Original Message ----
> From: Doug Cutting <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> 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
notwithstanding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
