geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hernan Cunico <hcun...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update
Date Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:59:24 GMT
Guys, that TOC is not casted in stone. That was my way to put some ideas together for topics
to cover.

IIRC, there have been discussion threads started back in October/November last year to gather
input around 2.1 documentation

Back to the tables, I rather have more column there than I actually need. Although I like
Confluence dealing with tables is a royal PITA.

Maybe having just Topic, owner, status would do the trick. If we are all OK with that then
we just remove the titles and done deal.

Cheers!
Hernan

Joseph Leong wrote:
> I'm glad the question has been brought up, i was wondering myself... 
> Ditto above 
> 
> Also, for the sections that are in 2.0 users that are not on 2.1 users - 
> does this mean we have decided to not transfer these sections over? 
> (i.e. some of the sample applications) or is it because some of the 
> documentation outline for 2.1 is not complete yet.
> 
> Wishing you all the best,
> Joseph Leong
> 
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Dan Becker <dan.o.becker@gmail.com 
> <mailto:dan.o.becker@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Jason Warner wrote:
>      > What's the "need update" column for on the 2.0 Update status
>     page?  Is that
>      > to mark a page that is moved over but still needs someone who
>     knows what the
>      > article is talking about to update it based on 2.1?
> 
>     Good question. I've been treating it as "needs rework to move to 2.1"
>     for planning purposes, but I agree this column can have many meanings.
>     An official statement would be helpful.
>     --
>     Thanks, Dan Becker
>     email: mailto://dan.o.beckerdo@gmail.com
>     <mailto:mailto://dan.o.beckerdo@gmail.com>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message