Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:56:36 -0700
From: Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-1271) Release documentation for JDBC4
 release
In-reply-to: <449AC899.3060401@apache.org>
Sender: Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <449ACBC4.9040804@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <26575551.1150918111726.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
 <4499D512.5000104@bristowhill.com> <449A93E6.2000809@sun.com>
 <449ABC9F.7010103@bristowhill.com> <449AC172.1060308@sun.com>
 <449AC899.3060401@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Thanks, Jean. The Edition line turns up in the visible text which
>>>>appears in the printed document. That makes me think that it applies to
>>>>something that the customer, the reader, cares about. I don't think the
>>>>reader is particularly concerned about our transition to dita. If that
>>>>is what Edition is supposed to capture, perhaps the Edition lines should
>>>>be moved to a comments section so that they will not be
>>>>visible/confusing to customers.
>>>>  
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>The Developers Guide has a "first edition" for both 10.0 and 10.1:
>>>  http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.0/manuals/develop/develop.html
>>>  http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.1/devguide/rdevcopyright.html
>>>
>>>I don't know why the Edition was bumped for the others. :-)
>>>
>>>If there isn't a major change to the content of the book, I don't think
>>>the edition should be bumped.
>>>
>>>"Working With Derby" should definitely not be bumped from First to
>>>Second edition since 10.2 will be its first release.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I could just bump the edition for the Reference Guide, which will carry
>>a lot of edits to reflect JDBC4. Would that be acceptable?
>>    
>>
>
>What does the "edition" represent? Would this mean the first release of
>the 10.2 documentation set would be partially at the "second edition",
>doesn't seem to make sense to me.
>
>Dan.
>  
>
This is what's troubling me too. From Jean's investigations it seems 
that "edition" doesn't have a consistent meaning across our user guides 
and releases. We could just remove the "edition" lines. If we leave them 
in, then it would be good to agree on their meaning. Maybe one of the 
following:

1) The Edition number is bumped whenever we create a release branch. We 
don't bump Edition for point or patch releases.

2) The Edition number is bumped whenever reviewers agree that a user 
guide has changed significantly.

3) The Edition number is the same as the release number. All user guides 
in a given release have identical Edition numbers.