geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jack <>
Subject Re: Documentation of new 2.2 features in current wiki?
Date Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:29:02 GMT
We do have some colleagues here that are interested in getting involved in
Geronimo documentation. We have been looking into the documentation
structure of v2.1 for some time now, and have generated some interesting
thinking on how to improve the information architecture for v2.2. We will
present our proposals soon. Hopefully it will be a good start for v2.2.

Jack Cai

2008/7/30 David Jencks <>

> On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>  I think it would be nicer to create pages with 2.2 specific content
>> somewhere under for now.
>> Once we have 2.2 documentation space setup we can move the pages
>> around. Or at least I don't think we should mix 2.2 content with 2.1
>> content.
> OK, but who exactly is going to do all this wiki maintenance that you are
> proposing?  I suggest mixing the docs because I don't think it will be
> confusing with prominent enough labels and I don't think that wiki
> maintenance is going to happen, no matter how many good intentions people
> now have.  Furthermore I would much rather that anyone with the knowledge to
> organize the documentation and interest in working on it spend it on content
> rather than continual reorganization.
> thanks
> david jencks
>> Jarek
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:52 PM, David Jencks <>
>> wrote:
>>> I've been playing around with openid and jaspi and would like to write up
>>> some documentation before I forget how it all works :-)
>>> I don't think we have enough people interested in documentation to pursue
>>> anything but the easiest-to-write path in documentation.  In particular I
>>> think more than one active copy of the docs is asking for disaster.
>>> I'd like to suggest that feature documentation should generally start
>>> with a
>>> "starting with version xxx" comment.  So, I'd put the openid/jaspi
>>> documentation in the current (2.1) wiki with a "starting with 2.2"
>>> notice.
>>> Obviously there's the problem that the wiki has the 2.1 version in its
>>> name. I don't know if a wiki can have its name changed but don't regard
>>> this
>>> as critical.
>>> I'm going to start doing this pending comments and better ideas.  At the
>>> rate I write I don't think I'll be causing significant damage before we
>>> have
>>> time for a full discussion :-)
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks

View raw message