W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > February 2003

Re: [check] 0.6.2 release (Was Re: inaccuracies in validator)

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:02:04 +0100
To: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>, Frederic Schutz <schutz@mathgen.ch>
Message-ID: <a0106000b-1024-5A29E4B247A411D78C510030657B83E8@[193.157.66.23]>

Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> wrote:

>
>My RPM doesn't have a clean patch at the moment, but a hunk of perl code
>that does some in-place edits to check.cfg and the httpd.conf snippet.
>It's a perl hunk instead of a patch because it uses stuff provided by
>RPM, basically some directory locations which is better from a RPM point
>of view than a patch with "hardcoded" paths.  And it avoids the need for
>a separate patch file.  You can see the hunk in the spec file in CVS,
>look for "# Localize config files".  Yell if you need clarification on
>that.

Hmmm. I'm not really sure we can avoid that since RPM wants tokens -- e.g.
%{_sysconfdir} -- in there and we want real paths. I'm not sure there is
any problem with v.w3.org not using the config file from CVS, but it should
be usable for CVS/tarball users without pre-processing with RPM.

The DEBUG option has been disabled in CVS, but other then that I can't
really see any way to eliminate that perl chunk in the spec file.


>>>The version number of the validator should be somewhere in the UI.
>>
>>[...] Do you think we need the "human readable" version number also?
>
>Yes, I do, as long as we have the "human readable" ones in Bugzilla and
>refer to them in public elsewhere.

Ok, header.html now includes it in the initial <h1> on every page
(including Validator output).


>Of course, that causes some extra things for the "release manager",
>but there are other places where this is needed anyway.  So it's
>just one addition to the list.

Sure, it may even be helpfull in tightening up the release process.


>>Anyone have anything left to deal with?
>
>Apart from a couple of trivial documentation updates (checklink needs
>Config::General), nothing here that should absolutely go into 0.6.2.
>There are some checklink bug reports that I'll be working on soon(tm),
>but nothing critical that would prevent this release.

Well, Checklink can be more easily updated independantly of the Validator
so I suppose that's ok. In general I'm really hoping this will be the last
release of 0.6.x before focusing on 0.7.0. At which point, BTW, I would
like to see Checklink and the Validator get better integrated from the POV
of the user visiting http://validator.w3.org/.

-- 
Now Playing "What Am I Gonna Do With You" by "Barry White"", from the album
"The Ultimate Collection".
Received on Sunday, 23 February 2003 22:02:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:43 GMT