[Swift-devel] swift versions

[Mihael Hategan]

On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:39 -0500, Sarah Kenny wrote:
> so, in this scenario, the changes to the doc that exist in each branch
> are pushed to the main user doc when we do the release or am i missing
> a step here?

That or we really have no "main doc" and instead we link from every
release. Though I feel odd about that.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Mihael Hategan <hategan at mcs.anl.gov>
> wrote:
>         
>         On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:28 -0500, Justin M Wozniak wrote:
>         > On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Sarah Kenny wrote:
>         >
>         > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Mihael Hategan
>         <hategan at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>         > >
>         > >> Right. I think 1.0/4.1.7 should go out soon.
>         > >
>         > > ok, so i guess we should decide what 'soon' means ;) i am
>         currently going
>         > > thru the old bugs in bugzilla (at least trying to close
>         out things that have
>         > > been already fixed or are no-longer applicable, etc), but
>         perhaps it would
>         > > be good to determine if there are bigger issues outside of
>         that that still
>         > > need to be dealt with before we can put what we've got
>         into a stable release
>         > > and determine a time-frame...anything come to mind?
>         > >
>         > > as far as documentation...does it make sense for each
>         branch to have a full
>         > > copy of /ci/www/projects/swift under it which can then be
>         merged with the
>         > > main/live copy whenever the code is merged? admittedly, i
>         know nothing about
>         > > docbook, but from the standpoint of updating and merging
>         this seems to make
>         > > sense to me (though feel free to suggest another way :)
>         > >
>         > > ~sk
>         >
>         > I was looking at the update.sh script earlier today- I
>         propose we have one
>         > web site but multiple docs/guides directories, all
>         accessible from the
>         > docs/index.php page.  Each of these would be associated with
>         a branch.
>         > So, similar to the existing "Historical" section but for
>         "future" branches
>         > as well.  That would take a small modification to the
>         update.sh script and
>         > manual modification of the docs/index.php page for each
>         version number.
>         >
>         > We may also want to have the feature changes (past and
>         future version
>         > numbers) available on that page but I think those can be
>         plain text.
>         > These could be pulled directly from SVN as well.
>         >
>         
>         
>         I agree. I generally believe that documentation should be kept
>         in sync
>         with releases (and I also think that the effort of doing so is
>         minimal).
>         
>