Guys, that TOC is not casted in stone. That was my way to put some ideas
together for topics to cover.
IIRC, there have been discussion threads started back in October/November last
year to gather input around 2.1 documentation
Back to the tables, I rather have more column there than I actually need.
Although I like Confluence dealing with tables is a royal PITA.
Maybe having just Topic, owner, status would do the trick. If we are all OK
with that then we just remove the titles and done deal.
Cheers!
Hernan
Joseph Leong wrote:
I'm glad the question has been brought up, i was wondering myself...
Ditto above
Also, for the sections that are in 2.0 users that are not on 2.1 users -
does this mean we have decided to not transfer these sections over?
(i.e. some of the sample applications) or is it because some of the
documentation outline for 2.1 is not complete yet.
Wishing you all the best,
Joseph Leong
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Dan Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Jason Warner wrote:
> What's the "need update" column for on the 2.0 Update status
page? Is that
> to mark a page that is moved over but still needs someone who
knows what the
> article is talking about to update it based on 2.1?
Good question. I've been treating it as "needs rework to move to 2.1"
for planning purposes, but I agree this column can have many meanings.
An official statement would be helpful.
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
email: mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
