+1 on this. I find management hard to please when I persuade changing to a new technology only to have issues related to documentation. This prolongs deployment and doesn't help with the already difficult management decision. It took us a month to switch to CloudStack and almost a week to begin defending the choice because of outdated documentation. This was of course before the donation to apache, since then it's been a lot easier and management isn't so concerned. but none the less, publicly facing documentation, I feel, should be kept current, to include bug fixes.
Chris Ryan Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC 404 People Place, Suite 402 Charlottesville, VA 22911 Office: (434) 244-4002 -----Original Message----- From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 4:34 PM To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; car...@reategui.com; dev Subject: Re: Doc Updates Great rant Carlos, You should get it to the dev list. Actually I'll add the dev list in now. It makes sense to update the docs also after a release, when bug in the docs are found these can easily be changed without a full release cycle of the code itself. regards, Daan On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Carlos Reategui <create...@gmail.com> wrote: > It seems like the only way that docs ( > http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/en-US/index.html) are updated is > when a release is done. Is it not possible to have these updated otherwise? > Waiting for the next patch release of the software so that the docs > get updated is causing problems with folks not being able to get > CloudStack installed properly and therefore gives them a bad > impression of the maturity of CloudStack. > > It makes no sense to me why there are multiple versions of documents > for each of the point releases (currently there is 4.0.0, 4.0.1, > 4.0.2, 4.1.0, > 4.1.1 and 4.0.2 docs) when the feature set has not changed within each > of these. I understand that the docs are built as part of the build > and release process but why does that have to impact the rate at which > the primary doc site is updated. Can't the patch releases simply > update the release notes? Personally I think there should be a single > 4.x version of the docs (I would be ok with a 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2 > versions too if major features are going to be added to them). Maybe > the doc site should have wiki like capabilities so that it can be more easily > maintained. > > ok, I am done ranting...
