On 5.5.14 10:56 , Thomas Mueller wrote:
Hi,
I guess most users will rely on the published documentation at
http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/, and not install and build the
documentation locally. That way we can easily improve the (for example
1.0) documentation even after a release.
But that documentation might get out of sync rapidly. I think it is very
valuable to have the documentation as up to date as possible in the
release itself. The other alternative would be to drop the module from
the release. I'd prefer that to non up to date documentation.
I wonder how we should deal with documentation that is version specific.
Of course we could have different documentation in different SVN branches,
and backport additions to earlier branches. But should we do that? It's
quite a lot of work to maintain, and I'm not sure if there is much
benefit.
If we include oak-doc in the release, I think we should do that and, no
I don't think this is a lot of extra work.
If we do it, would we have multiple published documentations, one
per major version (http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/1.0,
http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/2.0,...), or just document the
latest version? Or should we maintain just one set of documentation, and
mark version specific changes within the documentation itself?
I think it is fine to just publish the documentation of the trunk
online, as long as we ship oak-doc with each release and make sure it is
up to date.
Michael
Regards,
Thomas
On 02/05/14 12:33, "Michael Dürig" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
What are our plans for oak-doc in the 1.0 release? I noted that its
version is still at 0.20-SNAPSHOT. I think we should bump this to
1.0-SNAPSHOT and merge all relevant doc changes from trunk to the 1.0
branch so Oak-1.0 will ship with up to date documentation.
Michael
