db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jean T. Anderson" <...@bristowhill.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-1271) Release documentation for JDBC4 release
Date Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:39:26 GMT
Jeff Levitt wrote:
<snip>

> As the person who contributed the DITA-converted
> documentation, I can tell you I didn't bump the
> edition up based on that.  I believe the pre-DITA
> documentation already said Second Edition.  

The pre-DITA (10.0) doc source says First Edition:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/getstart/gspr.ihtml
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/reference/sqlj.ihtml
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/develop/develop.ihtml
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/tools/tools.ihtml
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/admin/hubprnt.ihtml
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/tuning/perf.ihtml

> The thought is that major releases (10.0, 10.1, 10.2)
> are First Editions, and subsequent fixpaks are Second,
> Third, Fourth editions etc., like 10.1.3 would be.  In
> any case, we haven't adhered to any kind of
> consistency on this with the guides, so I agree that
> we need to define what we feel is an "edition" and
> stick with it or remove it alltogether (although
> perhaps there's a legal reason to keep it?)

If we don't have a specific use for it, I recommend removing it. I don't
know of any legal reason to have it.

 -jean

Mime
View raw message