Agreed. That's yet another aspect of Ubuntu's documentation that I like. https://help.ubuntu.com/ (Note the tabs.)
As for versioning, I'm thinking that it's probably a tremendous overhead to have have separate docs for point releases (at least online, we would continue the process we have now of snapshotting the docs for releases), so perhaps we could have different doc branches (1.6, 1.7, 2.0 etc) and caveats on pages like "NOTE: applies to version 1.6.4 and later". That seems functional yet not overly painful. Still brainstorming here. If anyone else has ideas, I'm keen to hear them. Mike Arne Kepp wrote: > One thing that just popped up on the -users list, and which I too have > messed up completely over at geowebcache.org , is the issue regarding > what version documentation applies to. > > Ideally I think we'd like "copy-on-change", but since that's probably > not realistic I think we should aim for a structure where we copy the > entire documentation tree when we release a new version. Of course that > will get annoying with minor point releases, which can still contain > major upgrades, so I guess we'll have to compromise somehow, but > definitely have separate trees. > > Anyway, I think it's important to think about this before we start > feeding stuff into the new system, whichever one it ends up being. > Documentation is a lot of (important) work no matter how you look at it. > > -Arne ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
