activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Single version docs on Artemis
Date Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:25:27 GMT
Like Francesco just committed a doc changed on mapped journal. Mapped
Journal is on 2.0.0 but the docs are out dated.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I would prefer a separate repo for the docs, its fine to have
> versions linked to a release but then they are set in stone. Docs are
> usually the last thing to get written and sometimes rushed or maybe not
> even in time for a release. If they were in a separate repo you could still
> spend time improving them as a separate effort, adding missing info, fixing
> mistakes etc. we could still ship them with a release if we wanted but also
> allow for further updates after then. We could also have 2 streams in 1 for
> 1.5 and 1 for 2.0.
>
> Andy
>
> On 15 March 2017 at 13:56, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Martyn Taylor <mtaylor@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > I'd prefer to keep the latest versions of docs for each minor release.
>> I'd
>> > squash all the 1.5.x into just 1.5, but keep 1.0, 1.1 etc...  The 1.5
>> docs
>> > may not be applicable to 1.4 due to the introduction of new features.
>> 1.0
>> > for example, is very different from 1.5, but we I feel we should still
>> > provide docs for those users who have not been able to upgrade.
>>
>> Users can refer to the docs on github or on the downloaded package
>> also. We could even add a note to where to relate the docs if you're
>> on a older version.
>>
>>
>> 2 years from now... 2.1, 2.2, 2.3... .the list will only grow...
>>
>>
>> We're even encouraged to archive older downloads from apache
>> guidelines.. I believe Tim Bish did some cleanup on ActiveMQ and
>> Artemis last year for that reason.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On a related note, (I can start a separate DISCUSS thread on this if
>> people
>> > prefer).
>> > I'd like to also suggest that we stop distributing the documentation as
>> > part of the release distribution and instead just provide links to the
>> > latest versions.  Having the docs released as part of the binary and
>> source
>> > distribution, means that we need to do a full Artemis release just to get
>> > doc changes out.  Instead I'd like to see docs either on their own
>> release
>> > cycle or just built periodically, housed somewhere and linked to from the
>> > distribution.  Thoughts?
>>
>> I would keep the docs on the release the way it is, for the reason I
>> mentioned before.. we wouldn't keep 1.0, 1.1. .... 1.N, 2.N on the
>> website.
>>
>> But then minor updates could go to the website right away without
>> requiring a release just for that.
>>
>> We could even add a link for a more updated documentation visit us @
>> .. (Link goes here).
>>



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Mime
View raw message