[aerogear-dev] Proposed Organization for our Site

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Douglas Campos <qmx at qmx.me> wrote:
> Howdy again
>
> I was thinking on how should we organize our site + generated docs. We've been talking on hosting api.aerogear.org, but Kris remembered  me of how important is to have separated -dev and -stable docs.
>
> So my first proposal for this org is:
>
> aerogear.org for our production site - generated from our 'production' branch
> staging.aerogear.org the same for 'staging' branch

or 'dev' ?


>
> api.aerogear.org/<subproject>/ for API docs? how should we differentiate from stable and dev?

I like what the W3C does:
'published' => http://www.w3.org/TR/websockets/
'development' => http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/

I also like the fact that they are linking between 'stable' and development...


> IMHO we need to have consistence across the projects, but at the same time I'm out of ideas apart from api.aerogear.org/aerogear-js/1.0.0.Alpha1/ (version component is the last, being 'current' or 'dev' the current versions)
>

IMO the last release needs at least to be online; I don't mind if API
docs from previous are available as a download...

The 'current' API docs (those that are 'dev') can be hosted on some
'dev.aerogear.org' site - perhaps they should say that they are not
stable... :)


-M

> thoughts?
>
> -- qmx
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf