commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [logging] documentation updates
Date Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:59:52 GMT
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 22:21 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 09:12 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > i've been playing around with a new document (or possibly two) over the
> > last few months: a troubleshooting document. i'd really like to get it
> > finished but i've been finding it difficult to write and i'm not very
> > happy with it ATM. maybe i'll see if i can pull together a first draft
> > so that other people have a chance to take a look...
> > 
> > could also do with a guide for downstream rebundlers including advice on
> > options for people like drools. haven't start this yet (but some of the
> > content currently in troubleshooting may end in there) so if anyone
> > wants to pick it up, go ahead. 
> Sounds like this is a fine candidate for putting up on the wiki rather
> than embedding in the static project page. A "work in progress" that may
> need updating later is going to be awkward embedded in the site.

the document i have in mind really wants distributing with the release.
i'd also like it referred to in the release notes. IMO a document
explaining why JCL runs in to problems and how to fix them is vital.  

the wiki is bad for important documentation that needs to be available
long term (a good example is that the best practises document has gone
missing). svn is mirrored offshore and forms a public record. the main
website is also better indexed which is important when users are trying
to find out how to fix things.

> And the benefit is that we can also get the RC out without waiting for
> the doc :-).

since every commons release seems to require multiple release
candidates, we can go ahead with a candidate for feedback without having
to wait.

> Actually, apart from the minor work Dennis was going to do:
>  * make release#s in the menu which are currently "clickable" into 
>    plain text like digester site
>  * replace junit report with static text about how ant is used
> I think we are ready to go.
> As those are so minor, what do you think about creating RC1 right now?

what we could do with is a dry run for local criticism and so that
people can check all the stuff that usually goes wrong. i have to go out
in about an hour (i've promised that i'll fix a mate's network and
internet which he needs for university work next week). if you are
around now, feel free to roll a RC1 release for public evaluation.
otherwise, i'll cut one this afternoon (GMT) 

in general, i'd favour using the alpha, beta, gold process for this
release so that we can encourage users to test the release before it's

- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message