David Crossley wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
How do we link from the main docs-author (or site-author?) part of the site?
If we use docs/plugins/ then it will intergrate easily.
With the final scheme, we now need to put the generated
plugins docs in the forrest/site repository u
David Crossley wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > How do we link from the main docs-author (or site-author?) part of the site?
>
> If we use docs/plugins/ then it will intergrate easily.
With the final scheme, we now need to put the generated
plugins docs in the forrest/site repository under
th
I have the generated versioned documents ready for commit
for both 0.7 and 0.6 versions.
For those on forrest-svn mailing list, sorry about the
size of the commit messages.
--David
David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
If they went under docs/plugins/$plugin-name/
then they will fit better with the versioning system
described above.
OK, that's where I'll put them then.
Hmmm, but you put them under /plugins/docs/ instead?
http://svn.apache.org/viewcv
Ross Gardler wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >
> >If they went under docs/plugins/$plugin-name/
> >then they will fit better with the versioning system
> >described above.
>
> OK, that's where I'll put them then.
Hmmm, but you put them under /plugins/docs/ instead?
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 12:01 -0400, Dave Brondsema wrote:
> Quoting David Crossley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > David Crossley wrote:
> > > >>Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > Note that in this case, if 0.4 of the plugin works in 0.7 of Forrest we
> > > should also have the 0.
Quoting David Crossley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > >>Ross Gardler wrote:
> > >>How do people suggest I integrate the plugin docs with the main website
> > >>docs?
> > >
> > >If they went under docs/plugins/$plugin-name/
> > >then they will fit better wi
Ross Gardler wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >>Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>How do people suggest I integrate the plugin docs with the main website
> >>docs?
> >
> >If they went under docs/plugins/$plugin-name/
> >then they will fit better with the versioning system
> >described above.
>
> OK, that's
David Crossley wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
[snip]
Assuming that we don't want to version the top-level docs.
Is that a legitimate assumption? It would change our layout if we do.
I don't know the answer yet either.
f.a.o/ ... the t
David Crossley wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > > David Crossley wrote:
[snip]
> > > >
> > > > Assuming that we don't want to version the top-level docs.
> > >
> > > Is that a legitimate assumption? It would change our layout if we do.
> > > I don't know the answer yet
Dave Brondsema wrote:
>
[snip]
> Furthering this idea, if we are versioning and storing docs-author and
> site-author, do we really need to store them seperately? As you said,
> this method would mean we won't have to restructure the
> forrest_06_branch docs into two parts.
Good point. This sepa
David Crossley wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Dave Brondsema wrote:
/docs/dev/ nested below /docs/ seems weird. I think it would be better
to host the current stable release at a url like: /docs/0.7/. This
would also permit us to keep documentation for al
David Crossley wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > > Dave Brondsema wrote:
> > > >
> > > > /docs/dev/ nested below /docs/ seems weird. I think it would be better
> > > > to host the current stable release at a url like: /docs/0.7/. This
> > > > would also permit us to ke
David Crossley wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Dave Brondsema wrote:
> > >
> > > /docs/dev/ nested below /docs/ seems weird. I think it would be better
> > > to host the current stable release at a url like: /docs/0.7/. This
> > > would also permit us to keep documentation for all old release
David Crossley wrote:
> Dave Brondsema wrote:
> >
> > /docs/dev/ nested below /docs/ seems weird. I think it would be better
> > to host the current stable release at a url like: /docs/0.7/. This
> > would also permit us to keep documentation for all old releases
> > (although we would probably
David Crossley wrote:
Here is a screenshot, which shows both alternative
locations for the MOTD panel:
http://imagebin.org/1935
Should i continue with this workaround?
It looks great, just wheat we need.
Ross
David Crossley wrote:
>
> The missing piece is that we need to clearly denote the version number
> on all docs. We should be able to do something rough-and-ready
> to get us by.
I have been experimenting with ways to do this.
Even if just a quick fix, it needs to be configurable.
I am calling th
Dave Brondsema wrote:
>
> /docs/dev/ nested below /docs/ seems weird. I think it would be better
> to host the current stable release at a url like: /docs/0.7/. This
> would also permit us to keep documentation for all old releases
> (although we would probably want warnings on them if they are
Ross Gardler wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Just a quick note, gotta rush out now. Yes there was stacks of discussion
on this topic, but its good to be sure that we all understand, and maybe
there is a flaw.
The docs that are currently at docs/dev/ are 0.7-dev
They will move to /docs/ when the next r
Ross Gardler wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >Just a quick note, gotta rush out now. Yes there was stacks of discussion
> >on this topic, but its good to be sure that we all understand, and maybe
> >there is a flaw.
> >
> >The docs that are currently at docs/dev/ are 0.7-dev
> >They will move to /
David Crossley wrote:
Just a quick note, gotta rush out now. Yes there was stacks of discussion
on this topic, but its good to be sure that we all understand, and maybe
there is a flaw.
The docs that are currently at docs/dev/ are 0.7-dev
They will move to /docs/ when the next release happens.
Then
Just a quick note, gotta rush out now. Yes there was stacks of discussion
on this topic, but its good to be sure that we all understand, and maybe
there is a flaw.
The docs that are currently at docs/dev/ are 0.7-dev
They will move to /docs/ when the next release happens.
Then /docs/dev/ will beco
I just realised a problem with our documentation. Most of us provide
links to the website when answering questions. Often these links refer
to the current dev docs which are given an URL of
http://forrest.apache.org/docs/dev/
Now, when we release the dev version (in this case 0.7) we will
pres
23 matches
Mail list logo
