On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Rob Weir <rabas...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 12, 2013, at 2:26 PM, "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: >> >> > Am 07/12/2013 07:18 PM, schrieb janI: >> >> On 12 July 2013 18:49, Rob Weir<robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> In the past we drafted release notes on the wiki, and then moved them >> >>> to a location on the website. I'd like to challenge our thinking on >> >>> this. >> >>> >> >>> Wouldn't it be useful to keep the release notes as a "live" document >> >>> on the wiki, so we can easily update it with additional information on >> >>> known issues as they are found, especially after release? >> >> >> >> I see your point, however I disagree. >> >> >> >> I think the release doc. for 4.0 is part of the release and should be >> >> frozen in svn like all other release artifacts. This is done by having >> it >> >> as a static web page. >> > >> > I support the doubts of Jan. >> > >> > The release notes should be seen as an artifact from a release as they >> describe this. We can also go that far that we write down the SVN revision >> number into the release notes. Then they are really tied strictly to this >> release and nothing else. >> > >> >> And I did not mean to suggest anything else. The wiki page would be >> tied to a specific version of AOO, a different page for each version. >> But it would be updated to reflect the latest info, especially in the >> "known problems" section. >> >> >> >> >> We can then have a "latest information", which are live in wiki. >> > >> > What about to put a link like this at the top of the release notes to >> give it more visible attention: >> > >> > Text: "For the latest information about Apache OpenOffice 4.0 see >> > this related Wiki page." >> > Link: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AOO400_Lastest_Info >> > >> >> Look at it from the perspective of the user. They want one place to go >> for relevant info related to the release and problems they might >> encounter. They don't want to hunt around for "old" versus "new" info. >> Those distinctions are not relevant to a new user. >> >> For example, imagine Windows 8.1 comes out and causes a problem with >> AOO4, but there is a good workaround that could save the user much >> frustration. But the release notes don't mention this. They just say >> Windows 8 is tested. This is not very helpful. >> >> >> > Then new and important / noteable changes can be documented in the (more >> easily accessible) Wiki. >> > >> >> My proposal was to handle this by keeping the release notes on a wiki >> page so such changes are seen by users with the least effort for them >> and us. >> >> -Rob >> > > Arguments either way it seems. Leaving them on the wiki would certainly be > good especially for last minute changes -- which have happened. I guess it > boils down to -- when a release is announced, where are the Release Notes > of record? and if things change -- i.e. *New* Discovered Issues, as opposed > to Known Issues in the Release Notes -- should this be kept as a separate > entity that is not part of the Release Notes of record? OK, a lot of legal > gobbly gook I guess >
Two separate considerations, perhaps: 1) Whether Release Notes are updated overtime, post-release, based on feedback from users and discovery of new issues? Or are they frozen-in-time, snapshots that never change, but might point to a different page that is updated. 2) What technology we use to create, publish and (if needed) update the release notes. It is possible to have a "living" document for Release Notes and do it entirely in HTML on the website. It is possible to do it on the wiki. It is even possible to do it on the committer-only CWiki. (Anyone remember that we have that?) Since we all seem to like drafting the release notes on the wiki, it might reduce the work if we just keep it there. It makes it easier for translators as well. But I'm not too concerned with the except technology used. I'm more concerned with keeping it up to date, and easy to understand. In other words, if we have a section called "known issues", I want it to remain accurate as new issues are discovered. It is 2013 and this is the internet. We shouldn't have a "let's slip an errata sheet into a hardbound book" mentality about this. > I personally find it annoying to get "instructions" and "issues" at a site > one day, that somehow morph into something else the next. Even if these > things are not legally binding, there's that sort of confusion factor. > I think most users consult the page rarely. They might look once when they install initially. And then they look again perhaps, if they run into a problem. One advantage of the release notes in particular (and this is true of no other page) is that they tend to have higher Google PageRank, because they are linked to from news articles. So users who query for things like "apache openoffice 4.0 issues" will tend to find that page high on their results list. This would not be true for issues that we push off to another, secondary page. > I, too, really don't like the idea of anyone with a wiki account being able > to change these, especially with the possibility of no general > consultation or consensus. > There are ways of handling this that control the ACL, such as using the OOODEV CWiki, or even using static HTML or MDText pages, if the open access of the wiki is a concern. Regards, -Rob > > >> > My 2 ct. >> > >> > Marcus >> > >> > >> > >> >>> Remember, even if the issue is not caused by AOO code, a new upgrade >> >>> to a dependent operating system or other 3rd party application can >> >>> cause new issues to appear at any time. So keeping the release notes >> >>> updated is important. >> >> >> >> This issue is highly caused by AOO code, remember the release code is >> >> tested with a given set of third party libraries and given versions of >> the >> >> operating systems. >> >> >> >> Release notes reflect the environment tested for the 4.0 release, >> >> everything that comes later should either be kept in a separate >> document or >> >> postponed to a new release. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Do we lose anything if we do this? For example, is there a concern >> >>> that the wiki can not handle the load? >> >> >> >> Wiki can handle the load (it must because a lot of people will search >> for >> >> info). >> >> >> >> Yes we loose trackability. Release notes is in svn (in my opinion). >> >> Remember in wiki anybody can change, so if person X test AOO on >> platform Y >> >> should he/she then just update the release documentation, I hope not. >> >> >> >> But again, your idea of a live document is good, I just see it as a >> second >> >> document (similar to what a lot of companies does). >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "Every day we should hear at least one little song, > read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, > and, if possible, speak a few sensible words." > -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
