Re: "New in development version" equivalent in current docs?
Hi there, On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can't put anything with spaces in there. It feels a little > inconsistent to put 1.1 in there, since we generally hold off talking > about version numbers from the future so that bug reporters are forced > to use accurate version numbers. > > I'd probably say that we bite the bullet and use 1.1 except then we > should do what one of the Spanish Marc's has suggested in a ticket > somewhere (could I be any less specific on the details, do you think?) > and make the main documentation link point to the 1.0 docs and put a > "development docs this way" sign up somewhere. That's me! There are two consecutive tickets that talk about version[added|changed]. You may be talking about #8992 and there's also #8991 (about when to remove those strings :P) >From my POV, when you commit something to trunk you know it's going to be in the next X.Y release, so it's safe to put the X.Y version "to-be-released-next". I don't really think people need to know in which exact moment of the development process the feature went in (if you are tracking trunk, you *track* it). *Maybe* we could instruct Sphinx in ways to change the X.Y thing "automagically" to "Development Version" when X.Y refers to the yet-to-be-released version. But writting there anything that is not the X.Y of the next version means more work *before release* (change whatever was there to the corresponding X.Y). Just my 0.02, Marc --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: "New in development version" equivalent in current docs?
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 07:38 -0500, Tim Chase wrote: > > I'm still coming to grips with Sphinx, but is there any reason that we > > can't just use 1.X or 1.SVN as a version number for the development > > version? That gets around the need to specify the exact version > > number, but keeps it reasonably obvious that it's a development > > version. > > If non-digits are allowed, one might even consider something like > >trunk.8123 > > to indicate that the documentation was added for a feature in > trunk, r8123 which would help pair documentation with code > sitting on a developer's machine. Please, no. The idea isn't to create even more work for us. :-) This would mean we can't commit correct documentation with the change that introduces a feature (since one needs to know the revision number) and you end up having to always remember to make a second commit. If a developer is tracking trunk they can keep up to speed themselves. If they can't, there's a 1.0.X branch there for their very own personal use. Regards, Malcolm --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: "New in development version" equivalent in current docs?
> I'm still coming to grips with Sphinx, but is there any reason that we > can't just use 1.X or 1.SVN as a version number for the development > version? That gets around the need to specify the exact version > number, but keeps it reasonably obvious that it's a development > version. If non-digits are allowed, one might even consider something like trunk.8123 to indicate that the documentation was added for a feature in trunk, r8123 which would help pair documentation with code sitting on a developer's machine. Possible problems (having not tinkered with Sphinx enough to know how it works) include: 1) balking at non-digits in a version number 2) if Sphinx builds documentation for each revision it finds, one might end up with myriad documentation folders, one for each SVN revision in the docs. Just my $0.02 (though in the current economy, that's pretty expensive, but still won't buy you much gasoline ;-) -tim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: "New in development version" equivalent in current docs?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > I'd probably say that we bite the bullet and use 1.1 except then we > should do what one of the Spanish Marc's has suggested in a ticket > somewhere (could I be any less specific on the details, do you think?) > and make the main documentation link point to the 1.0 docs and put a > "development docs this way" sign up somewhere. > Maybe you mean ticket #8992: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8992? I'm not wild about the idea of making the older docs the default, I've always rather liked seeing what's new and improved in the default, but don't feel that strongly about it. I do think if we switch to "latest official release" as the default it would be better to use the 1.0.X branch content rather than the 1.0 release tag content. Karen --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: "New in development version" equivalent in current docs?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd probably say that we bite the bullet and use 1.1 except then we > should do what one of the Spanish Marc's has suggested in a ticket > somewhere (could I be any less specific on the details, do you think?) > and make the main documentation link point to the 1.0 docs and put a > "development docs this way" sign up somewhere. > > Thoughts? +1 to Marc's suggestion regarding the main documentation link being the v1.0 docs. I'm still coming to grips with Sphinx, but is there any reason that we can't just use 1.X or 1.SVN as a version number for the development version? That gets around the need to specify the exact version number, but keeps it reasonably obvious that it's a development version. Russ %-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
"New in development version" equivalent in current docs?
I added some new feature documentation tonight (r9188), but noting it was new gave me a bit of a headache. I ended up adding .. versionadded:: development which is a pretty digusting hack. Sphinx really wants .. versionadded:: X.Y You can't put anything with spaces in there. It feels a little inconsistent to put 1.1 in there, since we generally hold off talking about version numbers from the future so that bug reporters are forced to use accurate version numbers. So there seem to be two choices. Well, three if you permit the current hack, but I don't really like it, since it doesn't work with "make changes". The first option is use ".. versionadded:: 1.1". The second option is to write our own directive that goes back to the old "New in Django development version". I'd probably say that we bite the bullet and use 1.1 except then we should do what one of the Spanish Marc's has suggested in a ticket somewhere (could I be any less specific on the details, do you think?) and make the main documentation link point to the 1.0 docs and put a "development docs this way" sign up somewhere. Thoughts? Regards, Malcolm --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
