Updates to Geronimo 2.2 documentation
Hi all, Recently we have seen updates to the Geronimo 2.2 doc. We have been studying the Geronimo 2.2 release roadmap and analyzing what should be added/changed to the doc. We'll soon add some skeleton topics based on our understanding and analysis of the new/changed features. We'll definitely need help from the community to add more flesh and blood to the doc. Thanks.
Geronimo 2.12.2 Documentation
Folks, We have discussed the documentation issue in another mail thread and agreed to adopt the new structure for 2.2. As the 2.2 space is now available (with old content though) and the dual maintenance issue is raised, I'd like to do the maintenance work with my colleagues. You can update the 2.1 doc, and I can help port the new information to 2.2 if necessary. Thanks. Rebekah Zhang
Re: Documentation of new 2.2 features in current wiki?
Well, only the Export/Restore actions require administrator authority. Others like move and copy pages can be done by author, and I have tried those actions. On 8/19/08, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm ... it seems that we might have a problem then. If admin authority is required to export/restore then it is also most likely the case that admin is required to move pages and such for the proposed new structure. It might not be possible for Rebekah to make these changes. I'm also wondering if we are really at the point where it makes sense to copy the 2.1 doc to 2.2 and start incurring the duplicate maintenance costs. There are not yet any 2.2 pages created under the parent page that we made for that purpose. Is now really the time to export/restore? Joe PS. I also attempted to do a quick export/restore with a very simple space prior to leaving for vacation. I had some problems too ... I can't recall what they were at the moment ... I'll have to give it another shot ... but there might be more than just an authority issue with this process. wei zhang wrote: Hi I tried the Export/Restore option David Belvins suggested, but couldn't make any progress because only the administrator can perfrom such actions. Can someone with administrator authority help? Thanks. Rebekah Zhang On 8/19/08, *David Jencks* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 17, 2008, at 11:28 PM, Jack Cai wrote: Is someone working on copying 2.1 space to 2.2? :-) If we don't have a solution for the copy approach, maybe we just let Rebekah and her colleagues go ahead to manually copy reorganize... David Blevins posted fairly complete instructions for the various options on aug 1 in this thread. Is there some problem with doing export/restore? thanks david jencks -Jack
Re: Documentation of new 2.2 features in current wiki?
Hi I tried the Export/Restore option David Belvins suggested, but couldn't make any progress because only the administrator can perfrom such actions. Can someone with administrator authority help? Thanks. Rebekah Zhang On 8/19/08, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 17, 2008, at 11:28 PM, Jack Cai wrote: Is someone working on copying 2.1 space to 2.2? :-) If we don't have a solution for the copy approach, maybe we just let Rebekah and her colleagues go ahead to manually copy reorganize... David Blevins posted fairly complete instructions for the various options on aug 1 in this thread. Is there some problem with doing export/restore? thanks david jencks -Jack
Re: Documentation of new 2.2 features in current wiki?
My previous email was intended to be sent out earlier...not sure what was wrong with my gmail... The question now is not about 2.1--2.2--Reorganize or 2.1--Reorganize--2.2. I'm fine with both approaches, as long as I can contribute to the community with somethings that helps. Yes, Bill, I am volunteering to maintain the documentation. My original idea was to work out the structure and see how the community would like it, and then populate the 2.2 doc with the content under the new structure, but the discussion went on to the maintenance issue. Documentation is a big part of the development effort. Having developers themselves develop and maintain both the functions and the documentation is really a headache, which is why many folks tend to keep the status quo. With the documentation coordination work somewhat separated from technical development effort, developers will be able to focus on the fancy features, contribute information about what tasks the users can complete with the features, and leave the rest to the documentation coordinator. I agree with David that ease of maintenance is important. If we start from a solid base, the future maintenance work won't be too much of a problem. And this documentation project might attract more interested people as time goes by... Per previous discussions, we might have difficulty importing the whole 2.1 space to 2.2. If anyone knows how to copy the entire 2.1 space to 2.2, I will be able to work with my colleagues to reorganize the content then. If copying the space is sheer manual effort, I might want to start from the new structure and flesh it with the existing information. Thanks. Rebekah On 8/12/08, Jarek Gawor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Didn't we agree to seed the 2.2 space from 2.1 space first and then reorganize it? Jarek On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:29 PM, wei zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I'll start together with my colleagues to seed the 2.2 space http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDOC22/Documentation with the new information center based structure. I hope to get more comments from the community that will help improve the documentation. Thanks.
