On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Mads Kiilerich <m...@kiilerich.com> wrote: > On 01/13/2015 09:04 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The current documentation, available at >> http://kallithea.readthedocs.org/en/latest/, sometimes contains >> references like [1]: >> >> - Starting from Kallithea version 1.2 ... >> - From version 1.4 Kallithea ... >> >> but these version numbers are not valid Kallithea references, but they >> are inherited from our ancestors. >> >> How should we handle such cases? > > > Yes, that is wrong. > > I think we should enjoy that Kallithea is starting "now" and doesn't have > any history. We should remove such references to the past from the > documentation. We should however also make it more clear how to upgrade from > RhodeCode. > > The documentation could also benefit from more basic proof reading from > someone proficient in English/American. > > Other improvements of the content or structure of the documentation would > also be appreciated. But please keep iterations short so we avoid conflicts.
Other problems are duplication/conflicts between the wiki and the documentation, for example there is a contributing section on both of them, but the contents are different: https://bitbucket.org/conservancy/kallithea/wiki/Home http://kallithea.readthedocs.org/en/latest/contributing.html We should decide one location for such information, and keep only that. Do you have a preference? The advantage of the in-tree documentation which is on readthedocs too, is that it is also available off-line for users that have the repo. But is readthedocs updated with the tip, or with the latest revision? _______________________________________________ kallithea-general mailing list kallithea-general@sfconservancy.org http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general