On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM, 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. Over the past couple weeks a good percentage of the emails to the list have been caused due to the wrong template URL in the installation docs. I just had a look and they are still pointing to the old templates. Along the same lines the other problem most people have had is not knowing to upgrade the templates when upgrading from 4.1 to 4.2. Just had a look at the docs and that is still not been updated. I would have thought this would have been a high priority to fix and would have been in that first update given the number of people running into these. > 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. > Can you point us to a guide on how to make doc fixes? Is this in git? I though I just saw a reference to SVN in another email in this thread. > > --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... >
