Hi Ari,
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:29 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> Just a heads up that I've finished linking together all the
> children in the version 2 docs. It is a little time consuming, so I
> don't think I'll do version 1.2, since the pages are identical to
> version 2.0 almost everywhere.
Thanks a lot for this work!! I think we are ok with just 2.0 and 3.0
docs being fully linked on Wiki.
> For the future, perhaps we should think of ways to not have to
> maintain multiple versions of documentation.
Documentation "branches" are a necessary evil, just like code
branches (e.g. similarly we often have to apply identical bug fixes
to 1.2, 2.0, and 3.0 at the same time), and in fact they correspond
to the *maintained* code branches. Going forward we can reduce the
number of versions maintained at any given moment to just two (1.2
vs. 2.0 vs. 3.0 is a unique situation caused by us joining Apache).
I.e. when 3.0 becomes "STABLE" and 4.0 becomes development release,
we will pull 1.2 and 2.0 doc sets from the site entirely.
> Perhaps a tag we attach to the page or part of a page which
> indicates the version in which that feature was introduced.
This is a good idea to do for the current releases. At the same time
including the docs for the not-yet-existing features with an old
release can be confusing. Even worse, some framework concepts change
over time, with old concepts/API being removed from the docs, so
stable release users can get the wrong picture.
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Feb 11 2007 - 21:59:25 EST