Re: [aerogear-dev] Proposed Organization for our Site

>> api.aerogear.org/<subproject>/ for API docs? how should we differentiate from stable and dev? 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) > > I am also +1 for this organization. That way, we can keep all old docs live for those using older version and use it as a way of informing user of no longer supporting versions with messaging on the docs. Do you really want to host every 'alpha', 'beta' etc online ? For major releases I can see that, but IMO when alpha2 is released, I am not sure if there is really need to host alpha1..

> And we can use that same messaging to inform users that they are looking at the dev version which is subject to change and shouldn't be used in production. >> I like the linking from the W3C, where they link to both 'published' and 'dev' spec -M >> thoughts? >> >> -- qmx >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)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 _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev