W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > December 2002

Re: [check] Progress on 0.6.2... yes please!

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: 08 Dec 2002 20:32:50 +0200
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Cc: Frederic Schutz <schutz@mathgen.ch>
Message-Id: <1039372370.27094.120.camel@bobcat.ods.org>

On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 07:34, Terje Bless wrote:

> Since W3C-folk/Olivier has acted on the "burning" issue from 0.6.1, we may
> no longer be that much in need of a 0.6.1 release from a v.w3.org
> perspective. But there are still some open issues that could do with an
> update and there are packaging issues that would make a 0.6.2 release
> appropriate IMO.

As you may have noticed, I fixed an old bug in checklink today, which
caused it to recurse *everywhere* if the submitted URI didn't have a
slash after the hostname, eg. <http://validator.w3.org>.  I also tested
it by running against v.w.o and fixed some broken links while at it.

Since checklink is distributed with validator, I'd like to see 0.6.2
soon, as well as live on v.w.o.

All changes to checklink are at the moment in the 0_6_0 branch of
validator, HEAD is outdated.  There's no "experimental" version of
checklink ATM, so I prefer to keep the newest version in a branch that
is closest to the running production release.  Checklink needs some
refactoring, though, the code is actually pretty hairy; that will most
likely happen in HEAD (or wherever the dev branch is) sometime.

> 5. More...? What else does Frederic/Ville need to facilitate packaging
>    and distribution of official packages? cf. apt-get etc.

As discussed before, this is not a "must have", we can generate apt
indexes offsite, they're transferable.

> When it comes to packaging I have, apart from general good quality, only
> one specific concern; namely that I want packages that are not in a
> vendor's standard distribution to be hosted somewhere at w3.org (probably
> v.w3.org). This mainly to make clear that the packages are "official"[0]
> and to make them easy to find for users. This does not, of course, prevent
> the packagers from viewing the v.w3.org copies as a secondary location
> and/or mirror of their own preferred placements. :-)
> Only if this doesn't inconvenience the packagers unduly, of course.

I'm fine with this.

Oh, and a cleanup suggestion: could the following files be 'cvs rm'd
from dev.w3.org; they're outdated and add unnecessary confusion in the
validator tarballs.  Remember, "cvs rm" doesn't *delete* the files,
they're still accessible in CVS' Attic dirs, and can be easily restored
if need be.

   httpd/cgi-bin/: traceroute, p3p, referers, LinkChecker.pl
   htdocs/:        p3p.html, favlets.html

\/ille Skyttä
ville.skytta at iki.fi
Received on Sunday, 8 December 2002 13:30:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:23 UTC