Artem, Ok, let's suggest edits for 2.9 release documentations via pull request to ignite-7595 branch if there are no other objections.
чт, 6 авг. 2020 г. в 13:20, Artem Budnikov <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>: > Alex, > > The documentation source files are still in the IGNITE-7595 branch. I > haven't pushed them to the master yet, but I can do so if it is > necessary. Or, you can add your changes to this branch. I added an > instruction on how to contribute: > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/IGNITE-7595/docs/README.adoc > > I suggest we do the first release of the new docs manually (just like we > do on readme.io) to get a sense of how the process works and how to > automate it better. Then, I'll document the entire process on our wiki. > > Sounds good? > > Artem > > On 06.08.2020 11:37, Alex Plehanov wrote: > > Denis, Artem, > > > > I've marked the "tracing" ticket as important. > > Also, I've added a new section to the release page [1] and created > > documentation tickets for some features. Now there is a documentation > > ticket exists for each important feature implemented in 2.9. > > I know that some Igniters are currently working on documentation, but the > > question is still unanswered: where to push changes? To GitHub, or to > > readme.io? Guys, can you clarify, please? > > > > [1]: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Documentationtasksforimportantfeaturesimplementedin2.9 > > > > > > вт, 4 авг. 2020 г. в 21:08, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > >> Hi Alex, > >> > >> Certainly, the new documentation should not be treated as a showstopper, > >> and if the code is ready much earlier, then we can release the docs on > >> readme.io. > >> > >> But, it's not clear what's the documentation readiness status. As per > our > >> updated release process, the docs need to be ready before the voting is > >> started [1]. That change was discussed and introduced after our > >> lessons-learned conversations related to the 2.8 release. > >> > >> Could you please help to figure out the status by preparing a list of > >> documentation tasks that must be completed before the voting time (all > >> significant features and changes)? The "most important tasks" section > [2] > >> already lists most of them, but the list might be incomplete. For > example, > >> the tracing feature should be added in 2.9, but it's not in the > important > >> tasks list. There might be something else profound that we should put on > >> paper. > >> > >> Once we get the list, we can start working with the contributors in > charge > >> to get things done. If some documentation pages won't be finished in 2 > >> weeks from now, then it's reasonable to contribute the 2.9 docs to the > new > >> docs repository that will be ready for the release in 3-4 weeks. Just my > >> thinking. > >> > >> [1] > >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.1EnsureDocumentationReadinessandAccouncementBlogPostActivity > >> [2] > >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Themostimportantreleasetasks > >> > >> - > >> Denis > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:54 AM Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Denis, > >>> > >>> We have some performance drop on benchmarks, so we need some time to > find > >>> problematic commit and analyze it. I hope this will be completed during > >> the > >>> current week and we move to the "Vote preparation" phase to the start > of > >>> next week. > >>> I think waiting for another month due to documentation it's too much. > >>> Do we have an option to release with documentation on readme.io and > then > >>> move documentation in the new format during next month? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> пн, 3 авг. 2020 г. в 17:55, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > >>> > >>>> I would wait for 3-4 weeks and release the new docs in 2.9. It means > >> that > >>>> the release should be announced the first week of September which is > >> not > >>> a > >>>> huge slip. Moreover, it feels like the testing phase and release > >>> procedures > >>>> will not be completed sooner. > >>>> > >>>> So, I would suggest contributing 2.9 related page to the new > >>> documentation > >>>> repository. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Denis > >>>> > >>>> On Monday, August 3, 2020, Artem Budnikov < > a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Maxim, > >>>>> > >>>>> The new docs project is not finished yet. There are still a lot of > >>> pages > >>>>> to port to the new format, and we are still working on the > >> integration > >>>> with > >>>>> the web-site. Nevertheless, we can try to publish the Ignite 2.9 > >>>>> documentation on the web-site in the new format. The documentation > >> will > >>>> not > >>>>> be 100% complete, but it will be updated significantly and will > >> contain > >>>>> most of the information our users need. Actually, I would like to do > >>>> that, > >>>>> but it all depends on how much time I have before Ignite 2.9 is > >>> released. > >>>>> I'd say 2-3 weeks would be enough for me to finish all tasks that are > >>>>> critical for the publication. > >>>>> > >>>>> If we can wait with release 2.9 that much time, then I'll prepare the > >>>>> instruction on how to contribute to the docs. > >>>>> > >>>>> What do you think? > >>>>> > >>>>> -Artem > >>>>> > >>>>> On 03.08.2020 12:24, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Artem, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'd like to submit some documentation changes for 2.9 release. > >> Should > >>>>>> I update docs on readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:06, Artem Budnikov > >>>>>> <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Alex, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sorry, I missed this message. There is still a lot of work on the > >>> docs. > >>>>>>> When is version 2.9 going to be released? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Artem > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 22.07.2020 10:35, Alex Plehanov wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Guys, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish > >> it > >>>> on > >>>>>>>> readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org? > >>>>>>>> What about new edits? Should we still edit pages on readme.io or > >>>>>>>> already > >>>>>>>> make changes in git repository? > >>>>>>>> Artem, could you please clarify the current documentation > >> workflow? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> пн, 20 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Artem Budnikov < > >>>>>>>> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Denis, > >>>>>>>>> How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to > >> the > >>>>>>>>> website > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very > >>> difficult. > >>>>>>>>> -Artem > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to > >>> the > >>>>>>>>> website > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>> Denis > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov < > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>>>>>> I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite > >>>>>>>>>>> documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the > >>>> docs > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some > >>>> people > >>>>>>>>>>> had > >>>>>>>>>>> troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction > >> on > >>>> how > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> use jekyll docker image. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me > >>>> know. > >>>>>>>>>>> The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please > >>>> don't > >>>>>>>>>>> report issues related to that. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -Artem > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier > >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>> docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit > >> PR > >>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>> docs) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> to the document page on site. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's > >>>>>>>>>>>> products > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> separate repos, for example. > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov < > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> OK, let's give it a try. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The way I see it, the documentation source files will be > >>> located > >>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> "/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, > >> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> build > >>>>>>>>>> scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you > >> know > >>>> when > >>>>>>>>>>>>> basic setup is ready. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Artem > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the > >>> same > >>>>>>>>>>>>> repository > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the source code will help us to prepare and release all > >>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw > >> documentation > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ascii-doc > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version > >> needs > >>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reside > >>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> create > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tools > >>>>>>>>>>>> to do this in one click. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the > >> opposite, > >>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>> suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if > >>>>>>>>>>>>> committers > >>>>>>>>>>>> to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a > >>> review > >>>>>>>>>>>>> later > >>>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new > >> APIs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate repo, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ > >>> to > >>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and > >> up > >>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> date. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't > >> been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> released > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand > >>>>>>>>>> that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, > >> but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>> looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's > >> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>> a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure > >>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or > >>> replace) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>> the IDE. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a > >> project. I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> do > >>>>>>>>>>>> it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because > >>>> it's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>> convenient to me. We are looking at it from different > >>>> perspectives. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm > >>>>>>>>>>>> trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech > >> writers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather > >>>>>>>>>> than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compromise:) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>>> is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a separate repo will require separate > >>>> ownership/management > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (probably?), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we already have everything in the main repo, why > >>>> introduce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overhead? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a > >> HUUUGE > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> overhead > >>>>>>>>>>>> for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the > >>> ones > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>> provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and > >> I'm > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> going > >>>>>>>>>>>> to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to > >> impose > >>>> any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strict process that impedes preparation of the docs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Artem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all your pros points work just as well for a separate > >>>> repository > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new > >> APIs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate repo, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or > >>>> replace) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>> the IDE. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am able to freely commit to master > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache > >>> master, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>>> is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a separate repo will require separate > >>> ownership/management > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (probably?), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we already have everything in the main repo, why > >>> introduce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overhead? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Artem Budnikov > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com <mailto: > >> a.budnikov.ignite@gmai > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> l.com>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I can see, all your pros points work > >> just > >>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate repository (except for "everybody knows > >> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it"). I > >>>>>>>>>> don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind keeping the docs in Ignite repo as long as I > >> am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit to master. Will I be able to do that? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Artem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23.06.2020 14:04, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ilya, Artem, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "Separate repo just because we can't finish > >> docs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release" > >>>>>>>>>>>> > does not make sense to me. My proposal is: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > - Working version is in the master branch > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > - When a release branch is created, e.g. > >>>> ignite-2.9, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create > >>>>>>>>>>>> > ignite-2.9-docs and update it as long as we want. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Pros (compared to a separate repo): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > - Docs can be updated along with the code, > same > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process > >>>>>>>>>>>> > - Visibility - everyone knows about main repo, > docs > >>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searchable together > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > with code in the IDE > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > - Code snippets can reference the actual code > >> and > >>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>> they compile > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > - Code snippets can be tested on TC > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > GridGain uses a separate repo for their docs, > >> and > >>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> be less than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > optimal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Especially when adding samples for new APIs > >> which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet > >>>>>>>>>> released. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Artem Budnikov > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com <mailto: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Pavel, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Yes, I mean a separate repository. The reason > >> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> usually updated after the product version is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released. As > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya > >>>>>>>>>>>> pointed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> out, keeping the docs in the main Ignite > >>>> repository > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entail > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> completing the docs before the release date, > >> which > >>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible under > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> current circumstances. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Ilya, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> You can look at your company's documentation > >>> for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working > >>>>>>>>>> prototype > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> turned production-ready approach. The > approach > >>> has > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tested > >>>>>>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> while and proved to be successful, at least > >> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>>>>>>> goals here. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> -Artem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On 23.06.2020 12:48, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Hello! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> I'm not really sold on the github version > >> yet, > >>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like to > >>>>>>>>>>>> see a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> prototype of such documentation before > >>> deciding, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me > >>>>>>>>>> it'w > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 0 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Pavel, we don't have enough discipline to > >> make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> documentation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> is ready at the time of release, and we may > >>> need > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to add > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notices here and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> there after a release is already out. This > >>> means, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate > >>>>>>>>>> git > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> repository, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> or at least separate git tag on that > >>> repository, > >>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> - > >>>> Denis > >>>> >
