> 2) What about considering documentation as whole project, with version
> number, to be sure that we have completed them, and that their status is
> ok ?
Currently, we are very agile, because of the publishing process we have.
Having versions which will be published in a controlled way is not a bad
idea, but the process has to be modified then (staging area, etc.).
I'm just wondering if we can use labels in the confluence pages to mark a version, but we need to have more knowledge about confluence to automate the process. (you can add lables, I tested it)
> 3) Is there some work done to organize the AUG ?
It would be necessary from my point of view. But currently, some new
content emerges, especially from Enrique in the area of Kerberos, which
is more important.
Not so sure. It would be very confortable to imrpove the structure (and I'm totally unable to provide some :) so that committers can add the doc in the right place. However, we have so much doc to add that it may be another solution to add the doc first, and structure after. I have not really an optinion on this.
Perhaps we can start a structure document in the sandbox, comparable to
the Basic User's Guide, in order to detect where we need more
This would be just great !
> 4) What about renaming the BUG to something less frightening ? (even if
> I found it funny, talking about BUG can be confusion for users ;)
The term BUG is not used on the site. I think Basic User's Guide is a
fine name. How about using the full name on the list? (Alternative:
"Getting Started with ApacheDS"?, abbr. GSWADS).
yukkk.... BUG is better :)