Yes I agree on both counts that we fork too often and we're likely to
update new documentation only. This kind of goes with my first option where
we keep it more generic e.g. use WildFly rather than WildFly ${version}.
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Jason T. Greene <jason.greene(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Also, I think it's far more likely developers will update the
current
documentation than fix old docs. By having a living doc for all versions
you ensure that users always have the most accurate information at their
disposal.
On May 13, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Jason T. Greene <jason.greene(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Just as a general note, no matter how we generate our documentation we can
always qualify versions. For example we can say "Since version X.y, blah".
In general software tends to be additive until you hit a major
rearchitecture. Currently I think we are forking the documentation too
much.
On May 12, 2016, at 10:33 PM, James Perkins <jperkins(a)redhat.com> wrote:
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Sometimes documentation is just plain out of date referencing behavior that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.
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.
There's a few different ways we could go with this.
Approach 1:
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.
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}+.
Approach 2:
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.
Approach 3
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.
Any other suggestions are welcome.
[1]:
https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/WFLY10/Documentation
--
James R. Perkins
JBoss by Red Hat
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
--
James R. Perkins
JBoss by Red Hat