Yiannis Avramides <ioannis.avrami...@gmail.com> writes: >Funnily enough I had the same question one or two days ago, even >though I'm pretty sure I helped design the documentation page >originally! Thank you AD for the clarification. > >As Leanpub places a copy of the published versions in a shared Dropbox >folder, I'll see if I can use the link to the file on Dropbox on the >website. > >Another thing to worry about is how much to worry about keeping track >of previous versions of these guides. I don't think Leanpub will let >us do that very easily, but perhaps someone knows better. Karl, do you >have any thoughts about this?
Well, I don't know anything about LeanPub's publication features, but in general, it's ideal to maintain an archive of all previously published manuals, with version numbers clearly marked (in case someone's running an older version of Arches). However, the manuals themselves, internally, should also be naming the version of Arches in which a given feature was introduced, so it's not SO crucial that older versions be available. The main thing is that there be a URL to the latest version at all times, e.g.: http://archesproject.org/NAME_OF_MANUAL-1.2.pdf and that there be a permanent "latest and greatest" link that always gets you to that latest version (via redirect or link or whatever): http://archesproject.org/NAME_OF_MANUAL.pdf The other main thing is the community be able to *contribute* to the documentation, and right now it's not obvious how to do that. If the source text for the manuals is in the public project (i.e., in the version control tree), then that fact should be made clear at http://archesproject.org/documentation/. But my impression is it's not, because the "docs/" folder in the repository just points to what appears to be old text for the installation guide (no user guide at all): https://bitbucket.org/arches/arches/src/fc72fcf4998b57427e7ade08dbc5859baa03fcd0/docs/?at=default ...it hasn't been modified since December 2013, so if the doc writers have been doing work since then, that work is not publicly visible, at least not in an easily findable way. For example, if a Summer of Code student wanted to contribute to the docs directly, how would they do so? I think we talked about this before, when the project was starting out and the doc team chose LeanPub. I realize that LeanPub makes some things easier (I admit I'm not sure what, but I'll take the team's word for it that it does). However, it is also imposing costs on the project, as we can see here. Can these problems be fixed while still using LeanPub? Best, -K -- -- To post, send email to archesproject@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe, send email to archesproject+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more information, visit https://groups.google.com/d/forum/archesproject?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Arches Project" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to archesproject+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
