That and the other documentation changes made in that pull request. Agreed that it's better to put them into the 2.0 release branch.
Gunnar On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Steve Varnau <[email protected]> wrote: > The new JDBC reference guide? Should we go ahead and pull that into > release2.0 branch? > > Either way it will make it to the web site, but if we need to make 2.0 > updates versus 2.1 updates, it would be better to have on release2.0 > branch, > yes? > > --Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gunnar Tapper [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 6:49 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Release 2.0 packaging - docs > > > > Yep. The pending documentation pull request doesn't matter much, does it? > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Roberta Marton > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I would include them. You are correct about release 1.3. > > > > > > Roberta > > > On May 4, 2016 4:06 PM, "Steve Varnau" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Roberta, Gunnar, (and anyone else who cares), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was generating source package for the release, and found that we > are > > > > excluding some doc directories. The comment in the .gitattributes > > > > file > > > > says: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remove documentation until until our generation code is available > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I take it the concern in 1.3 time frame was that docs were out of > > > > synch > > > > with rest of the code. But now I think we should be including all > the > > > docs > > > > with the release, yes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > > > Gunnar > > *If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.* > -- Thanks, Gunnar *If you think you can you can, if you think you can't you're right.*
