[Swift-devel] swift versions

[Sarah Kenny]

so, in that case the 'main user doc' would be something *like*
http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/swift/docs10/index.php ?

and THAT would include the updates from all the current branches merged into
it once we do a release?


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Mihael Hategan <hategan at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> 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).
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/swift-devel/attachments/20101007/054b371e/attachment.html>