Jeff Levitt wrote: <snip> > As the person who contributed the DITA-converted > documentation, I can tell you I didn't bump the > edition up based on that. I believe the pre-DITA > documentation already said Second Edition.
The pre-DITA (10.0) doc source says First Edition: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/getstart/gspr.ihtml https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/reference/sqlj.ihtml https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/develop/develop.ihtml https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/tools/tools.ihtml https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/admin/hubprnt.ihtml https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/branches/10.0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/manuals/tuning/perf.ihtml > The thought is that major releases (10.0, 10.1, 10.2) > are First Editions, and subsequent fixpaks are Second, > Third, Fourth editions etc., like 10.1.3 would be. In > any case, we haven't adhered to any kind of > consistency on this with the guides, so I agree that > we need to define what we feel is an "edition" and > stick with it or remove it alltogether (although > perhaps there's a legal reason to keep it?) If we don't have a specific use for it, I recommend removing it. I don't know of any legal reason to have it. -jean
