<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">I think we should stick with what we have, which works well enough, and just have a live / always up to date doc.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Everyone is pretty busy at the moment, so to switch to any new option, the starting point would be a volunteer willing to own all of the porting and reformatting work on all of our existing content. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 12, 2016, at 10:32 PM, James Perkins <<a href="mailto:jperkins@redhat.com" class="">jperkins@redhat.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">I've been reading the WildFly documentation [1] quite a bit lately and noticing a lot of issues. Sometimes it references WildFly 8 in the WildFly 10 (or 9) documentation. Sometimes it references JBoss AS 7. Links take you to old documentation, e.g. a WFLY10 doc takes you to a page for WFLY8. Sometimes documentation is just plain out of date referencing behavior that has possibly been removed or replaced by something better.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This has happened because we keep copying the documentation over each time we have a new version. Overall this makes sense as a lot of it doesn't need to be changed. However it leaves reading the documentation confusing. Reading documentation for WildFly 10 and seeing WildFly 8 in the text with a link for AS72 isn't very user friendly as I'm sure we can all agree.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There's a few different ways we could go with this.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Approach 1:</div><div class="">One, probably the easiest, is to use a single confluence project. We'd need to remove the version numbers from the text, which I think we should do anyway. Instead of referencing WildFly 10 we just reference it as WildFly.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">An issue I can think of with this approach is some how annotating or referencing that parts of the documentation only work with ${version}. For example new features would have to be noted they only work with ${version}+.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Approach 2:</div><div class="">Essentially he same as approach 1 only do allow different Confluence projects for the different Java EE target version. So WIldFly 8, 9 and 10 would all be documented under something like WFLYEE7.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Approach 3</div><div class="">Switch to using something like asciidoc which can use variables and generate links to the correct content. While this approach is probably takes the most work up front, it seems like like it would be easier to maintain between releases.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Any other suggestions are welcome.<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[1]: <a href="https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/WFLY10/Documentation" class="">https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/WFLY10/Documentation</a><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>-- <br class=""><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">James R. Perkins</div><div class="">JBoss by Red Hat</div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">wildfly-dev mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org" class="">wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br class="">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev</div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">
--<br class="">Jason T. Greene<br class="">WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect<br class="">JBoss, a division of Red Hat
</div>
<br class=""></body></html>