Like Francesco just committed a doc changed on mapped journal. Mapped Journal is on 2.0.0 but the docs are out dated.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Andy Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > 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). >> -- Clebert Suconic
