[Swift-devel] swift versions

[Justin M Wozniak]

Yup.

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Mihael Hategan wrote:

> 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).
>>>>>       >
>>>>>       >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Justin M Wozniak