Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update

On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Need update" would be something like moved the content from prev release > but not yet finished. Or worked on some brand new content but still need to > update it to reflect the latest changes on the server ( think of it

Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update

Jason Warner wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Jason Warner wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >

Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jason Warner wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > "Need update" would be something like moved the content from prev > >

Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update

Jason Warner wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: "Need update" would be something like moved the content from prev release but not yet finished. Or worked on some brand new content but still need to update

Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update

Guys, that TOC is not casted in stone. That was my way to put some ideas together for topics to cover. IIRC, there have been discussion threads started back in October/November last year to gather input around 2.1 documentation Back to the tables, I rather have more column there than I actuall

Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Need update" would be something like moved the content from prev release > but not yet finished. Or worked on some brand new content but still need to > update it to reflect the latest changes on the server ( think of it

Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update

"Need update" would be something like moved the content from prev release but not yet finished. Or worked on some brand new content but still need to update it to reflect the latest changes on the server ( think of it as if you started before Geronimo was released, then you would have a bunch of SN

Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update

I'm glad the question has been brought up, i was wondering myself... Ditto above Also, for the sections that are in 2.0 users that are not on 2.1 users - does this mean we have decided to not transfer these sections over? (i.e. some of the sample applications) or is it because some of the document

Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update

Jason Warner wrote: What's the "need update" column for on the 2.0 Update status page? Is that to mark a page that is moved over but still needs someone who knows what the article is talking about to update it based on 2.1? Good question. I've been treating it as "needs rework to move to 2.1"

Re: Geronimo v2.1 documentation update

Hernan, What's the "need update" column for on the 2.0 Update status page? Is that to mark a page that is moved over but still needs someone who knows what the article is talking about to update it based on 2.1? On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All

Geronimo v2.1 documentation update

Hi All, an interesting thing happened twice already this week. Given the number of doc contributions that started to flow recently (THANKS TO ALL OF YOU CONTRIBUTING) we ended up having, or just about to have, some overlapping. Talking with some of the folks we thought it would be a good idea t