geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Documentation of new 2.2 features in current wiki?
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:25:59 GMT

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  

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