What's an acceptable/expected timeframe for rolling out the published fixes 
once a patch has made it's way in? Is that something that can be automated 
after a successful Jenkins run?

Travis

On Oct 10, 2013, at 1:48 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:

> That is how it has been done previously - but we recently moved docs
> to their own repo to separate the software lifecycle from the docs
> lifecycle, and we have already had at least one update pushed to the
> docs post-release. The goal is to try and keep this up, and I hope to
> publish another set of updates tomorrow or over the weekend.
> 
> Bad docs make even the best software unusable IMO. That said, we could
> use more eyeballs - at least identify the problems for us. Bonus
> points for fixes.
> 
> --David
> 
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:24 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...

Reply via email to