I see at least 1 topic for the cloudstack collab. +1
Sent from my iPhone On 9 okt. 2013, at 23:01, "Christopher M. Ryan" <cr...@harmonia.com> wrote: > +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 because of outdated documentation.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...
