geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Documentation of new 2.2 features in current wiki?
Date Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:04:31 GMT
Agree.


-Donald


Jarek Gawor wrote:
> IMHO, the 2.2 space must be seeded from the 2.1 space. The question is
> just when to do it. That's why I suggested creating 2.2 content under
> some temporary space. Once we have the actual 2.2 space setup (from
> 2.1 content) then we can move these new pages into 2.2 space. It will
> be a lot easier to move just a few pages of the new content then merge
> lots of pages of 2.1 content into 2.2 space.
> 
> Jarek
> 
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I agree in principle with creating a new location for 2.2 features to be
>> documented.  My only concern was that we are consistent so that the
>> documentation will be easy for users to find and easy to integrate when we
>> eventually do a mass merge from 2.1 to 2.2.
>>
>> So, I created a new space for 2.2 documentation to provide a consistent
>> structure and to capture the enthusiasm to document 2.2 changes.  I seeded
>> it with a top level structure that matches our 2.1 doc but no actual
>> content.  You can find it here:
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC22/documentation.html
>>
>> I suggest that we create new content for 2.2 under this page for now:
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC22/what-changed-in-22.html
>>  .... I chose the current name to match what we had in 2.1.
>>
>> If a particular change has broad implications for documentation that is
>> already available in 2.1, we can copy current 2.1 content into 2.2 and
>> modify it accordingly.
>>
>> As David pointed out earlier, we do not have the ability to automatically
>> merge the 2.1 content into the 2.2 content at a later time using this
>> approach.  Any merge will be a manual effort.  The only alternative I am
>> aware of would be to seed the new 2.2 space with the complete current 2.1
>> content.  However, that brings about some maintenance issues of keeping
>> things in sync and doesn't encourage 2.2 updates.  When we last discussed
>> this for 2.1 we decided to start with the empty space and so I took the same
>> approach for this release.
>>
>> I hope this provides something that will serve as a good place for the 2.2
>> content for now.  If we decide later that we should have started with a
>> complete copy of 2.1 we can always create a copy and merge the new 2.2
>> documents back into the 2.1 copy.  However, for now this at least provides a
>> place we can use and it is obvious to our users where they can find 2.2
>> documentation.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>> Agree.  We could just create a "New Features in 2.2" page and people can
>>> create child pages to it for their new features as they are integrated into
>>> trunk....
>>>
>>>
>>> -Donald
>>>
>>>
>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>> I think it would be nicer to create pages with 2.2 specific content
>>>> somewhere under http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/index.html 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.
>>>>
>>>> Jarek
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:52 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
> 

Mime
View raw message