[Swift-devel] swift versions

[Mihael Hategan]

To summarize:

There is a 1-1 mapping between branches and docs. One of the branches
(corresponding to the current release) gets linked from "main" (i.e.
main docs are the docs for the current release). So:

branches/0.9 <-> 0.9 docs
banches/0.8 <-> 0.8 docs
trunk <-> trunk docs

If current release is 0.9, then main docs = 0.9 docs.

On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 15:30 -0500, Justin M Wozniak wrote:
> I meant release branch.  The valid branches could be hard-coded into the 
> update.sh script.  The main guide would be the doc associated with the 
> current version.  So right now, "main guide" would be aliased to 0.9 .
> 
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Sarah Kenny wrote:
> 
> > was thinking of what justin said, "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"
> >
> > i was assuming that whatever branch(es) these were associated with, that doc
> > would somehow need to make its way to a main guide that we are pointing
> > users to.
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Mihael Hategan <hategan at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:55 -0500, Sarah Kenny wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> define "all current branches". We have:
> >> 1. Release branches
> >> 2. Trunk
> >> 3. Development branches (which are transient entities and only there to
> >> make trunk's life easier).
> >>
> >>>  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).
> >>>        >
> >>>        >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>