[asterisk-dev] doc/ -> wiki.asterisk.org

[Klaus Darilion]

Am 03.11.2010 22:30, schrieb Russell Bryant:
> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 17:22 -0400, Leif Madsen wrote:
>> On 10-11-03 11:52 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 20:48 +0100, Klaus Darilion wrote:
>>>> Thus I vote for a clear distinction between the versions and keep a
>>>> dedicated documentation for each version. Especially with LTS versions
>>>> it will happen that people look up documentation of older releases and
>>>> are not interested in documentation and comments of a newer versions.
>>>
>>> Alright, I'm convinced.  You make a good case for it being this way, and
>>> nobody is making a case for leaving it how it is.  Nobody is arguing for
>>> it to be the other way ... or perhaps most people just don't care.  :-)
>>> I'll work on changing it.
>>
>> As long as we don't have duplicated documentation that needs to be updated in
>> multiple locations when something changes (and thus causes things to be out of
>> sync), I'm not for any way in particular. I'm most concerned about being able to
>> keep things in sync where necessary.
>
> Well, that's exactly what's going to happen.  For now, we will only have
> a 1.8 version of the documentation, but presumably very shortly, we'll
> have to clone it and have a 1.10 version to start adding documentation
> on new stuff that we add.
>
> It depends on the nature of the documentation change.  If it's an
> addition for new functionality, then it's not an issue.  If it's an
> improvement or fix, then we'll either duplicate it, or only apply it to
> the latest version of the docs.

If it is a fix, then usually it will be fixed in the code. Thus, if 
documentation of older releases is still autogenerated from the code, 
then I do not see a problem (at least for the documentation which is 
autogenerated). Of course, if there are fixes to the imported docs/* 
documentation then probably somebody has to go to the wiki and has to 
fix all respective versions.

regards
Klaus