cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Harm Boertien <>
Subject Re: Doc Updates
Date Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:25:16 GMT
I see at least 1 topic for the cloudstack collab.


Sent from my iPhone

On 9 okt. 2013, at 23:01, "Christopher M. Ryan" <> wrote:

> +1 on this. 
> I find management hard to please when I persuade changing to a new technology only to
have issues related to documentation. This prolongs deployment and doesn't help with the already
difficult management decision. It took us a month to switch to CloudStack and almost a week
to begin defending the choice because of outdated documentation. This was of course before
the donation to apache, since then it's been a lot easier and management isn't so concerned.
but none the less, publicly facing documentation, I feel, should be kept current, to include
bug fixes. 
> Chris Ryan
> Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC
> 404 People Place, Suite 402
> Charlottesville, VA 22911
> Office: (434) 244-4002
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daan Hoogland [] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 4:34 PM
> To:;; dev
> Subject: Re: Doc Updates
> Great rant Carlos,
> You should get it to the dev list. Actually I'll add the dev list in now. It makes sense
to update the docs also after a release, when bug in the docs are found these can easily be
changed without a full release cycle of the code itself.
> regards,
> Daan
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Carlos Reategui <> wrote:
>> It seems like the only way that docs (
>> are updated is 
>> when a release is done.  Is it not possible to have these updated otherwise?
>> Waiting for the next patch release of the software so that the docs 
>> get updated is causing problems with folks not being able to get 
>> CloudStack installed properly and therefore gives them a bad 
>> impression of the maturity of CloudStack.
>> It makes no sense to me why there are multiple versions of documents 
>> for each of the point releases (currently there is 4.0.0, 4.0.1, 
>> 4.0.2, 4.1.0,
>> 4.1.1 and 4.0.2 docs) when the feature set has not changed within each 
>> of these.  I understand that the docs are built as part of the build 
>> and release process but why does that have to impact the rate at which 
>> the primary doc site is updated.  Can't the patch releases simply 
>> update the release notes?  Personally I think there should be a single 
>> 4.x version of the docs (I would be ok with a 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2 
>> versions too if major features are going to be added to them).  Maybe 
>> the doc site should have wiki like capabilities so that it can be more easily maintained.
>> ok, I am done ranting...

View raw message