Like Francesco just committed a doc changed on mapped journal. Mapped
Journal is on 2.0.0 but the docs are out dated.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Andy Taylor wrote:
> Personally, I would prefer a separate repo for the docs, its fine to have
> versions linked to a
Personally, I would prefer a separate repo for the docs, its fine to have
versions linked to a release but then they are set in stone. Docs are
usually the last thing to get written and sometimes rushed or maybe not
even in time for a release. If they were in a separate repo you could still
spend
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> I'd prefer to keep the latest versions of docs for each minor release. I'd
> squash all the 1.5.x into just 1.5, but keep 1.0, 1.1 etc... The 1.5 docs
> may not be applicable to 1.4 due to the introduction of new
What we do for Qpid is to have a central documentation/download etc
page that links to the latest release artifacts and documentation for
each component, but then also have specific pages for each component
release that includes the artifacts and docs for each specific
release. Those are also
I'd prefer to keep the latest versions of docs for each minor release. I'd
squash all the 1.5.x into just 1.5, but keep 1.0, 1.1 etc... The 1.5 docs
may not be applicable to 1.4 due to the introduction of new features. 1.0
for example, is very different from 1.5, but we I feel we should still
Let's make the links 2.x and 1.x. Immutable links makes it easier on
google?
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:47 PM Timothy Bish wrote:
> On 03/13/2017 04:44 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > Right now we have 10. And going up.
> >
> > 1.0, 1.1, 1.5.0 1.5.11.5.4. 2.0
>
> I
On 03/13/2017 04:44 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
Right now we have 10. And going up.
1.0, 1.1, 1.5.0 1.5.11.5.4. 2.0
I think John is saying the same thing I said earlier, only keep 1.5.4
and 2.0.0 as those are the latest supported releases, when 1.5.5 ships
then drop 1.5.4 ...
Right now we have 10. And going up.
1.0, 1.1, 1.5.0 1.5.11.5.4. 2.0
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:37 PM Timothy Bish wrote:
> On 03/13/2017 04:07 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > Sure. Latest 1.x and latest 2.x.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just that it seems too much now.
>
>
On 03/13/2017 04:07 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
Sure. Latest 1.x and latest 2.x.
Just that it seems too much now.
Isn't that just two instances? That doesn't seem like to much.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:42 PM Jiri Danek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:27 PM,
Sure. Latest 1.x and latest 2.x.
Just that it seems too much now.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:42 PM Jiri Danek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I was wondering if we could / should update the docs
On 03/13/2017 01:27 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
this made sense at first (at least I think it did), but now that We
will have 10 versions (and counting) of Artemis... this seems a bit
too much...
http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs.html
I was wondering if we could / should update the docs
-version-docs-on-Artemis-tp4723714p4723717.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> I was wondering if we could / should update the docs page to only
> include the latest version (that is 2.0.0)... The docs are still
> maintained at the git, so you can always refer to the doc of the
> version
this made sense at first (at least I think it did), but now that We
will have 10 versions (and counting) of Artemis... this seems a bit
too much...
http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs.html
I was wondering if we could / should update the docs page to only
include the latest version (that is
14 matches
Mail list logo