cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christopher M. Ryan" <cr...@harmonia.com>
Subject RE: Doc Updates
Date Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:01:01 GMT
+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to begin defending the choice because of outdated documentation.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 [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 4:34 PM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; carlos@reategui.com; 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 <creategui@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems like the only way that docs (
> http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/en-US/index.html) 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...

Mime
View raw message