To get things moving I went ahead and did an export of the current
Geronimo 2.1 space (GMOxDOC21) and restored it as Geronimo 2.2
(GMOxDOC22). I only changed the space name and the initial title so
there are tons of references to Geronimo 2.1 in this new space still.
Here's a link to the
I am concerned at making changes in two places and we should eliminate
that if possible. Should we only copy the documents that are
complete? Is the check mark next to the document link a good
indication of completeness?
Lin
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lin Sun wrote:
I am concerned at making changes in two places and we should eliminate
that if possible. Should we only copy the documents that are
complete? Is the check mark next to the document link a good
indication of completeness?
I agree with the concern (in fact I raised it myself
I wish there is a way to tag a document page and say that it applies
to whatever release(s), then we can generate user docs for a release
based on documents that are tagged for that release. It seems
reasonable for certain document pages to stay the same between
multiple releases.
Lin
On Wed,
Joe, thanks for doing this. The maintenance of multiple spaces is worth
enabling the community to start working on the 2.2 docs.
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
To get things moving I went ahead and did an export of the current
Geronimo 2.1 space (GMOxDOC21) and restored it as Geronimo 2.2
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
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
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...
-Jack
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
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
Been watching this conversation with interest... since the discussion
has lagged, thought I'd throw a bit more fuel on the fire to completely
burn down the topic. So here's what I see...
1) Developers need a 'low friction' place to document new content
The process needs to be dirt simple... go
On Aug 11, 2008, at 1:25 PM, bill stoddard wrote:
Been watching this conversation with interest... since the
discussion has lagged, thought I'd throw a bit more fuel on the fire
to completely burn down the topic. So here's what I see...
1) Developers need a 'low friction' place to
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
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
Thanks Joe for all the work here!
After going through the new structure proposed by Rebekah, I would say it is
a derived version from 2.1, instead of a whole new structure. So I don't
think somebody familar with the current 2.1 structure would need much time
to get familiar with the new
Thank you for the additional information Rebekah. I didn't intend to
imply that change was bad ... I just wanted to better understand the
what was driving the change. Change just for the sake of change can be
useless and produce less than desirable results. I now understand the
problems
I agree in principle with creating a new location for 2.2 features to be
documented. My only concern was that we are consistent so that the
documentation will be easy for users to find and easy to integrate when
we eventually do a mass merge from 2.1 to 2.2.
So, I created a new space for
Hi Rebekah,
I just posted a note about a new space that I created for the 2.2
documentation. The new space was really created just to get things
moving for 2.2. It was not a statement of what the final structure
should be ... so please feel free to continue to explore this area and
IMHO, the 2.2 space must be seeded from the 2.1 space. The question is
just when to do it. That's why I suggested creating 2.2 content under
some temporary space. Once we have the actual 2.2 space setup (from
2.1 content) then we can move these new pages into 2.2 space. It will
be a lot easier to
Resending somehow this never came through the first time:
Hi Rebekah,
I just posted a note about a new space that I created for the 2.2
documentation. The new space was really created just to get things
moving for 2.2. It was not a statement of what the final structure
should be ...
If our goal is to have developers create documentation for new features when
the feature is integrate, then I don't see why we shouldn't just create the
2.2 space now and seed it with 2.1 right away. If no new features are added
yet, then the old documentation applies just as much to 2.2 as it
I agree that I don't really want to see a change of structure in
documentation unless someone can give a good reason to that. I feel
I just learned on how to locate some of the good information in the
doc and I don't want to go through that learning again.
The prob of seeding 2.2 space with 2.1
On Aug 7, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
IMHO, the 2.2 space must be seeded from the 2.1 space. The question is
just when to do it. That's why I suggested creating 2.2 content under
some temporary space. Once we have the actual 2.2 space setup (from
2.1 content) then we can move these
This is some great information Dave. Thanks for the details.
I experimented a little with export/restore but without much success. I
wasn't able to restore an image with an updated entities.xml (that
simply replaced the old space references with new space references).
Each time I attempted
Agree.
-Donald
Jarek Gawor wrote:
IMHO, the 2.2 space must be seeded from the 2.1 space. The question is
just when to do it. That's why I suggested creating 2.2 content under
some temporary space. Once we have the actual 2.2 space setup (from
2.1 content) then we can move these new pages
David Jencks wrote:
On Aug 7, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
IMHO, the 2.2 space must be seeded from the 2.1 space. The question is
just when to do it. That's why I suggested creating 2.2 content under
some temporary space. Once we have the actual 2.2 space setup (from
2.1 content) then
Agree. We could just create a New Features in 2.2 page and people can
create child pages to it for their new features as they are integrated
into trunk
-Donald
Jarek Gawor wrote:
I think it would be nicer to create pages with 2.2 specific content
somewhere under
On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 6:25 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
I think it would be nicer to create pages with 2.2 specific
content
On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:20 AM, David Jencks wrote:
My impression based on gossip is that while it's possible to copy an
entire wiki space it isn't possible to move individual pages between
spaces. Is this correct?
On Jul 31, 2008, at 3:38 PM, David Jencks wrote:
3. Create a new space
On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 6:25 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
I think it would be nicer to create pages with 2.2 specific content
somewhere under http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/index.html for now.
Once
David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 6:25 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
I think it would be nicer to create pages with 2.2 specific content
somewhere under
Joe Bohn wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 6:25 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
I think it would be nicer to create pages with 2.2 specific content
somewhere under
We do have some colleagues here that are interested in getting involved in
Geronimo documentation. We have been looking into the documentation
structure of v2.1 for some time now, and have generated some interesting
thinking on how to improve the information architecture for v2.2. We will
present
On Jul 29, 2008, at 6:25 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
I think it would be nicer to create pages with 2.2 specific content
somewhere under http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/index.html for now.
Once we have 2.2 documentation space setup we can move the
I've been playing around with openid and jaspi and would like to write
up some documentation before I forget how it all works :-)
I don't think we have enough people interested in documentation to
pursue anything but the easiest-to-write path in documentation. In
particular I think more
I think it would be nicer to create pages with 2.2 specific content
somewhere under http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/index.html for now.
Once we have 2.2 documentation space setup we can move the pages
around. Or at least I don't think we should mix 2.2 content with 2.1
content.
Jarek
On Tue, Jul
On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
I think it would be nicer to create pages with 2.2 specific content
somewhere under http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/index.html for now.
Once we have 2.2 documentation space setup we can move the pages
around. Or at least I don't think we should
37 matches
Mail list logo
