geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Warner" <>
Subject Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update
Date Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:54:22 GMT
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Hernan Cunico <> wrote:

> "Need update" would be something like moved the content from prev release
> but not yet finished. Or worked on some brand new content but still need to
> update it to reflect the latest changes on the server ( think of it as if
> you started before Geronimo was released, then you would have a bunch of
> SNAPSHOTs all over the place).
> If there is anything on the Need update column then there should not be a
> green check mark on the status column. Does this make sense? what do others
> think?

Your explanation of "Need update" seems to be about what I thought it was.
Thanks for the clarification.

> As for "...still needs someone who knows what the article is talking about
> to update..." I would hope that the people who jumps into any of those
> subjects can follow it through all the way. Otherwise this table won't help
> us figure out how complete the content really is.

 I understand your concern, but there are many topics in the
2.0documentation that are large and fairly encompassing.  I don't
think it
unreasonable for someone to move the document over and fix what they're able
to, but then mark it as Need update if they're not comfortable with their
knowledge on a certain subject.  I think it'll be very difficult to port all
this documentation over if we wait for someone who's able to verify every
thing on a page to take responsibility for it.  I'm not advocating people
just blindly port pages over and mark it as Need update without attempting
to verify what they can.  I just don't want people to be turned off from
helping with documentation just because they're not a power user.

> Cheers!
> Hernan
> Jason Warner wrote:
> > Hernan,
> >
> > 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?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Hernan Cunico <
> > <>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi All,
> >     an interesting thing happened twice already this week. Given the
> >     number of doc contributions that started to flow recently (THANKS TO
> >     ALL OF YOU CONTRIBUTING) we ended up having, or just about to have,
> >     some overlapping.
> >
> >     Talking with some of the folks we thought it would be a good idea to
> >     put together some sort of table or a list with the topics and who
> >     was working on them. So, I updated the 2.1 doc home page and added a
> >     few more pages to help us figure out who is working on what. This
> >     should also help bring in new contributions.
> >
> >
> >     Here is the page, I already started to put some names there. Pls
> >     chime in and update the info with the content you are working on.
> >
> >
> >
> >     What to others think?
> >
> >     Cheers!
> >     Hernan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~Jason Warner

~Jason Warner

View raw message