Personally, I would prefer a separate repo for the docs, its fine to have versions linked to a release but then they are set in stone. Docs are usually the last thing to get written and sometimes rushed or maybe not even in time for a release. If they were in a separate repo you could still spend time improving them as a separate effort, adding missing info, fixing mistakes etc. we could still ship them with a release if we wanted but also allow for further updates after then. We could also have 2 streams in 1 for 1.5 and 1 for 2.0.
Andy On 15 March 2017 at 13:56, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Martyn Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd prefer to keep the latest versions of docs for each minor release. > I'd > > squash all the 1.5.x into just 1.5, but keep 1.0, 1.1 etc... The 1.5 > docs > > may not be applicable to 1.4 due to the introduction of new features. > 1.0 > > for example, is very different from 1.5, but we I feel we should still > > provide docs for those users who have not been able to upgrade. > > Users can refer to the docs on github or on the downloaded package > also. We could even add a note to where to relate the docs if you're > on a older version. > > > 2 years from now... 2.1, 2.2, 2.3... .the list will only grow... > > > We're even encouraged to archive older downloads from apache > guidelines.. I believe Tim Bish did some cleanup on ActiveMQ and > Artemis last year for that reason. > > > > > > On a related note, (I can start a separate DISCUSS thread on this if > people > > prefer). > > I'd like to also suggest that we stop distributing the documentation as > > part of the release distribution and instead just provide links to the > > latest versions. Having the docs released as part of the binary and > source > > distribution, means that we need to do a full Artemis release just to get > > doc changes out. Instead I'd like to see docs either on their own > release > > cycle or just built periodically, housed somewhere and linked to from the > > distribution. Thoughts? > > I would keep the docs on the release the way it is, for the reason I > mentioned before.. we wouldn't keep 1.0, 1.1. .... 1.N, 2.N on the > website. > > But then minor updates could go to the website right away without > requiring a release just for that. > > We could even add a link for a more updated documentation visit us @ > .. (Link goes here). >
