At Apache Buildr we push the docs out to the website without mapping them to a release.
We also push changes on a release. We never update released bits - they're signed and voted and all. > On Nov 14, 2016, at 08:11, Martyn Taylor <mtay...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I'm not 100% I am following properly here, but a couple of points: > > The documentation API/user manual is currently shipped with the release. > So there's no way to update this after the release is out. We do host > copies of the documentation (and some additional formats) here: > > https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs.html > > These could be updated after a release. But would mean there's a > differences between what we ship and what we host online. If we want to > separate the documentation and the release, then perhaps we remove the docs > from the release altogether, and point users our docs page, which we can > update periodically? > > John, regarding your comments about pushing to docs periodically, could you > please explain how this works? could you point to me to a project that does > this so I can take a look? > > Thanks > Martyn > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:46 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:29 AM Clebert Suconic < >> clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> I'm against the idea of storing the docs outside the source repository. >>> It >>>> just makes sense for them to live together. When you're looking at a >>>> release bundle, the docs within it should match the release you pulled >>> down. >>>> >>>> I don't have an issue with us hosting multiple releases worth of docs, >>> even >>>> though at apache we only ever consider the latest release as valid. I >>>> think it would be beneficial for us to have docs setup for the current >>>> snapshot as well. This way we can see if users have feedback on the >>>> current goings on. That's where I'm talking about the continuous >> aspect >>> of >>>> this. They could even go into a SNAPSHOT folder. >>>> >>> >>> That would encourage snapshot usage IMO. >>> >> >> I don't understand this point. The ASF acknowledges snapshots. There's >> nothing wrong with snapshots, as long as its clear that: >> >> - Its not an official release >> - Taking the "official release" isn't a process involving cloning the >> current master/head of the repo. >> >> Do you have concerns with using snapshots? I think its actually a good >> practice, to make sure there's no compatibility issues for users or >> ourselves. >> >> >>> As of now I will just update 1.5.0 HTML with the change you made. >>> >>
