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

On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Jay Balunas wrote: > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:52 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>> >>>>>> 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.. >>> >>> No, sorry I wasn't clear. Just older final versions. I think alpha, beta, etc. should not be kept. >> >> >> +1 > > +1 - they would be accessible from git repo's if needed. > > I like defining rules for things like this to make it clear. > > api.aerogear.org/<subproject>/ > * Always host the last stable release docs for the overall AeroGear project No Jay, we would have a landing page that says stable/development and a list of versions. so api.aerogear.org/<subproject>/<version>

helps keeping things simple > * If there is no stable release yet (i.e. not at 1.0.Final+ yet) it hosts most recent AeroGear milestone release docs > * Note - this mean that after 1.0.Final future milestone docs (i.e. 2.0.0.M2) would need to be located somewhere else > > What would the other rules look like? > > > >> >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev -- qmx _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev