You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@cassandra.apache.org by Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID> on 2018/03/12 14:38:24 UTC
What versions should the documentation support now?
I'm unclear what versions are most popular right now? What version are you
running?
What version should still be supported in the documentation? For example,
I'm turning my attention back to writing a section on adding a data center.
What versions should I support in that information?
I'm working on it right now. Thanks,
Kenneth Brotman
Re: RE: RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Dinesh Joshi <di...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
trunk is the next release which is 4.0. You won't find a branch named 4.0 yet.
Dinesh
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018, 11:39:44 PM PDT, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#yiv3841634821 #yiv3841634821 -- _filtered #yiv3841634821 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3841634821 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3841634821 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3841634821 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3841634821 {panose-1:2 11 6 9 4 5 4 2 2 4;}#yiv3841634821 #yiv3841634821 p.yiv3841634821MsoNormal, #yiv3841634821 li.yiv3841634821MsoNormal, #yiv3841634821 div.yiv3841634821MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3841634821 a:link, #yiv3841634821 span.yiv3841634821MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3841634821 a:visited, #yiv3841634821 span.yiv3841634821MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3841634821 p.yiv3841634821MsoAcetate, #yiv3841634821 li.yiv3841634821MsoAcetate, #yiv3841634821 div.yiv3841634821MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv3841634821 p.yiv3841634821msonormal, #yiv3841634821 li.yiv3841634821msonormal, #yiv3841634821 div.yiv3841634821msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3841634821 span.yiv3841634821msohyperlink {}#yiv3841634821 span.yiv3841634821msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv3841634821 span.yiv3841634821emailstyle17 {}#yiv3841634821 p.yiv3841634821msonormal1, #yiv3841634821 li.yiv3841634821msonormal1, #yiv3841634821 div.yiv3841634821msonormal1 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3841634821 span.yiv3841634821msohyperlink1 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3841634821 span.yiv3841634821msohyperlinkfollowed1 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3841634821 span.yiv3841634821emailstyle171 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv3841634821 span.yiv3841634821BalloonTextChar {}#yiv3841634821 span.yiv3841634821EmailStyle27 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv3841634821 .yiv3841634821MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv3841634821 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3841634821 div.yiv3841634821WordSection1 {}#yiv3841634821
I show a 3.0 and a 3.11 branch but no 4.0. I’m at https://github.com/apache/cassandra .
From: Dinesh Joshi [mailto:dinesh.joshi@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:30 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Kenneth,
The only 4.x docs should go in trunk. If you would like to contribute docs to the 2.x and/or 3.x releases, please make pull requests against branches for those versions.
During normal development process, the docs should be updated in trunk. When a release is cut from trunk, any further fixes to the docs pertaining to that release should go into that branch. This is in principle the same process that the code follows. So the docs will live with their respective branches. You should not put the documentation for older releases in trunk because it will end up confusing the user.
It looks like the in-tree docs were introduced in 4.x. They seem to also be present in the 3.11 branch. If you're inclined, you might back port them to the older 3.x & 2.x releases and update them.
Personally, I think focusing on making the 4.x docs awesome is a better use of your time.
Thanks,
Dinesh
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018, 11:03:04 PM PDT, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
I made sub directories “2_x” and “3_x” under docs and put a copy of the doc in each. No links were changed yet. We can work on the files first and discuss how we want to change the template and links. I did the pull request already.
Kenneth Brotman
From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:19 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Yes, I agree, we should host versioned docs. I don't think anyone is against it, it's a matter of someone having the time to do it.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:14 PM kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t know why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that process.
We should still host versioned docs on the website however. Either that or we specify "since version x" for each component in the docs with notes on behaviour.
RE: RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I show a 3.0 and a 3.11 branch but no 4.0. I’m at https://github.com/apache/cassandra .
From: Dinesh Joshi [mailto:dinesh.joshi@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:30 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Kenneth,
The only 4.x docs should go in trunk. If you would like to contribute docs to the 2.x and/or 3.x releases, please make pull requests against branches for those versions.
During normal development process, the docs should be updated in trunk. When a release is cut from trunk, any further fixes to the docs pertaining to that release should go into that branch. This is in principle the same process that the code follows. So the docs will live with their respective branches. You should not put the documentation for older releases in trunk because it will end up confusing the user.
It looks like the in-tree docs were introduced in 4.x. They seem to also be present in the 3.11 branch. If you're inclined, you might back port them to the older 3.x & 2.x releases and update them.
Personally, I think focusing on making the 4.x docs awesome is a better use of your time.
Thanks,
Dinesh
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018, 11:03:04 PM PDT, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
I made sub directories “2_x” and “3_x” under docs and put a copy of the doc in each. No links were changed yet. We can work on the files first and discuss how we want to change the template and links. I did the pull request already.
Kenneth Brotman
From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:19 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Yes, I agree, we should host versioned docs. I don't think anyone is against it, it's a matter of someone having the time to do it.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:14 PM kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t know why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that process.
We should still host versioned docs on the website however. Either that or we specify "since version x" for each component in the docs with notes on behaviour.
Re: RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Dinesh Joshi <di...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Kenneth,
The only 4.x docs should go in trunk. If you would like to contribute docs to the 2.x and/or 3.x releases, please make pull requests against branches for those versions.
During normal development process, the docs should be updated in trunk. When a release is cut from trunk, any further fixes to the docs pertaining to that release should go into that branch. This is in principle the same process that the code follows. So the docs will live with their respective branches. You should not put the documentation for older releases in trunk because it will end up confusing the user.
It looks like the in-tree docs were introduced in 4.x. They seem to also be present in the 3.11 branch. If you're inclined, you might back port them to the older 3.x & 2.x releases and update them.
Personally, I think focusing on making the 4.x docs awesome is a better use of your time.
Thanks,
Dinesh
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018, 11:03:04 PM PDT, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
#yiv9726083586 #yiv9726083586 -- _filtered #yiv9726083586 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9726083586 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv9726083586 #yiv9726083586 p.yiv9726083586MsoNormal, #yiv9726083586 li.yiv9726083586MsoNormal, #yiv9726083586 div.yiv9726083586MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9726083586 a:link, #yiv9726083586 span.yiv9726083586MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9726083586 a:visited, #yiv9726083586 span.yiv9726083586MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9726083586 span.yiv9726083586EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9726083586 .yiv9726083586MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv9726083586 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv9726083586 div.yiv9726083586WordSection1 {}#yiv9726083586
I made sub directories “2_x” and “3_x” under docs and put a copy of the doc in each. No links were changed yet. We can work on the files first and discuss how we want to change the template and links. I did the pull request already.
Kenneth Brotman
From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:19 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Yes, I agree, we should host versioned docs. I don't think anyone is against it, it's a matter of someone having the time to do it.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:14 PM kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t know why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that process.
We should still host versioned docs on the website however. Either that or we specify "since version x" for each component in the docs with notes on behaviour.
Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Durity, Sean R
<SE...@homedepot.com> wrote:
> The DataStax documentation is far superior to the Apache Cassandra attempts.
> Apache is just poor with holes all over, goofy examples, etc. It would take
> a team of people working full time to try and catch up with DataStax. I have
> met the DataStax team; they are doing good work. I think it would be far
> more effective to support/encourage the DataStax documentation efforts. I
> think they accept corrections/suggestions – perhaps publish that email
> address…
And we accept patches, nothing to stop the documentation team at
Datastax (or anyone else) from contributing changes here.
> What is missing most from DataStax (and most software) is the discussions of
> why/when you would change a particular parameter and what should change if
> the parameter changes. If DataStax created a community comments section
> (somewhat similar to what MySQL tried), that would be something worth
> contributing to. I love good docs (like DataStax); Apache Cassandra is
> hopelessly behind.
This sounds pretty defeatist to me, particularly in the context of a
discussion about how to improve the Apache documentation.
> And, yes, the good documentation from DataStax was a strong reason why our
> company pursued Cassandra as a data technology. It was better than almost
> any other open source project we knew.
>
>
>
> (Please, let’s refrain from the high pri emails to the user group list…)
>
>
>
>
>
> Sean Durity
>
>
>
> From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrotman@yahoo.com.INVALID]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:02 AM
> To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> This went nowhere quick. Come on everyone. The website has to support
> users who are on “supported” versions of the software. That’s more than one
> version. There was a JIRA on this months ago. You are smart people. I just
> gave a perfect answer and ended up burning a bunch of time for nothing. Now
> its back on you. Are you going to properly support the software you create
> or not!
>
>
>
> Kenneth Brotman
>
>
>
> From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrotman@yahoo.com.INVALID]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:03 PM
> To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
>
>
>
> I made sub directories “2_x” and “3_x” under docs and put a copy of the doc
> in each. No links were changed yet. We can work on the files first and
> discuss how we want to change the template and links. I did the pull
> request already.
>
>
>
> Kenneth Brotman
>
>
>
> From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:19 PM
> To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree, we should host versioned docs. I don't think anyone is
> against it, it's a matter of someone having the time to do it.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:14 PM kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
>
> I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t know
> why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by
> downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that
> process.
>
> We should still host versioned docs on the website however. Either that or
> we specify "since version x" for each component in the docs with notes on
> behaviour.
--
Eric Evans
john.eric.evans@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@cassandra.apache.org
RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I don’t think it’s acceptable to have a site that’s “just poor with holes all over, goofy examples..” The documents are a reflection of the quality standards of the group. Why would the testing of the software be any better? It sends up red flags to me Sean. I’m very concerned about whether the group can manage this project when read things like that!
Kenneth Brotman
From: Durity, Sean R [mailto:SEAN_R_DURITY@homedepot.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 12:40 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
The DataStax documentation is far superior to the Apache Cassandra attempts. Apache is just poor with holes all over, goofy examples, etc. It would take a team of people working full time to try and catch up with DataStax. I have met the DataStax team; they are doing good work. I think it would be far more effective to support/encourage the DataStax documentation efforts. I think they accept corrections/suggestions – perhaps publish that email address…
What is missing most from DataStax (and most software) is the discussions of why/when you would change a particular parameter and what should change if the parameter changes. If DataStax created a community comments section (somewhat similar to what MySQL tried), that would be something worth contributing to. I love good docs (like DataStax); Apache Cassandra is hopelessly behind.
And, yes, the good documentation from DataStax was a strong reason why our company pursued Cassandra as a data technology. It was better than almost any other open source project we knew.
(Please, let’s refrain from the high pri emails to the user group list…)
Sean Durity
From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrotman@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:02 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Importance: High
This went nowhere quick. Come on everyone. The website has to support users who are on “supported” versions of the software. That’s more than one version. There was a JIRA on this months ago. You are smart people. I just gave a perfect answer and ended up burning a bunch of time for nothing. Now its back on you. Are you going to properly support the software you create or not!
Kenneth Brotman
From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrotman@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:03 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
I made sub directories “2_x” and “3_x” under docs and put a copy of the doc in each. No links were changed yet. We can work on the files first and discuss how we want to change the template and links. I did the pull request already.
Kenneth Brotman
From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:19 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Yes, I agree, we should host versioned docs. I don't think anyone is against it, it's a matter of someone having the time to do it.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:14 PM kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t know why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that process.
We should still host versioned docs on the website however. Either that or we specify "since version x" for each component in the docs with notes on behaviour.
_____
The information in this Internet Email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this Email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this Email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any applicable governing The Home Depot terms of business or client engagement letter. The Home Depot disclaims all responsibility and liability for the accuracy and content of this attachment and for any damages or losses arising from any inaccuracies, errors, viruses, e.g., worms, trojan horses, etc., or other items of a destructive nature, which may be contained in this attachment and shall not be liable for direct, indirect, consequential or special damages in connection with this e-mail message or its attachment.
RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: What versions should the documentation support
now?
Posted by "Durity, Sean R" <SE...@homedepot.com>.
The DataStax documentation is far superior to the Apache Cassandra attempts. Apache is just poor with holes all over, goofy examples, etc. It would take a team of people working full time to try and catch up with DataStax. I have met the DataStax team; they are doing good work. I think it would be far more effective to support/encourage the DataStax documentation efforts. I think they accept corrections/suggestions – perhaps publish that email address…
What is missing most from DataStax (and most software) is the discussions of why/when you would change a particular parameter and what should change if the parameter changes. If DataStax created a community comments section (somewhat similar to what MySQL tried), that would be something worth contributing to. I love good docs (like DataStax); Apache Cassandra is hopelessly behind.
And, yes, the good documentation from DataStax was a strong reason why our company pursued Cassandra as a data technology. It was better than almost any other open source project we knew.
(Please, let’s refrain from the high pri emails to the user group list…)
Sean Durity
From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrotman@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:02 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Importance: High
This went nowhere quick. Come on everyone. The website has to support users who are on “supported” versions of the software. That’s more than one version. There was a JIRA on this months ago. You are smart people. I just gave a perfect answer and ended up burning a bunch of time for nothing. Now its back on you. Are you going to properly support the software you create or not!
Kenneth Brotman
From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrotman@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:03 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org<ma...@cassandra.apache.org>
Subject: RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
I made sub directories “2_x” and “3_x” under docs and put a copy of the doc in each. No links were changed yet. We can work on the files first and discuss how we want to change the template and links. I did the pull request already.
Kenneth Brotman
From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:19 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org<ma...@cassandra.apache.org>
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Yes, I agree, we should host versioned docs. I don't think anyone is against it, it's a matter of someone having the time to do it.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:14 PM kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com>> wrote:
I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t know why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that process.
We should still host versioned docs on the website however. Either that or we specify "since version x" for each component in the docs with notes on behaviour.
________________________________
The information in this Internet Email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this Email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this Email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any applicable governing The Home Depot terms of business or client engagement letter. The Home Depot disclaims all responsibility and liability for the accuracy and content of this attachment and for any damages or losses arising from any inaccuracies, errors, viruses, e.g., worms, trojan horses, etc., or other items of a destructive nature, which may be contained in this attachment and shall not be liable for direct, indirect, consequential or special damages in connection with this e-mail message or its attachment.
RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
This went nowhere quick. Come on everyone. The website has to support users who are on “supported” versions of the software. That’s more than one version. There was a JIRA on this months ago. You are smart people. I just gave a perfect answer and ended up burning a bunch of time for nothing. Now its back on you. Are you going to properly support the software you create or not!
Kenneth Brotman
From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrotman@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:03 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
I made sub directories “2_x” and “3_x” under docs and put a copy of the doc in each. No links were changed yet. We can work on the files first and discuss how we want to change the template and links. I did the pull request already.
Kenneth Brotman
From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:19 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Yes, I agree, we should host versioned docs. I don't think anyone is against it, it's a matter of someone having the time to do it.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:14 PM kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t know why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that process.
We should still host versioned docs on the website however. Either that or we specify "since version x" for each component in the docs with notes on behaviour.
RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I made sub directories “2_x” and “3_x” under docs and put a copy of the doc in each. No links were changed yet. We can work on the files first and discuss how we want to change the template and links. I did the pull request already.
Kenneth Brotman
From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:19 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Yes, I agree, we should host versioned docs. I don't think anyone is against it, it's a matter of someone having the time to do it.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:14 PM kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t know why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that process.
We should still host versioned docs on the website however. Either that or we specify "since version x" for each component in the docs with notes on behaviour.
Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Jonathan Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>.
Yes, I agree, we should host versioned docs. I don't think anyone is
against it, it's a matter of someone having the time to do it.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:14 PM kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
> I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t
>> know why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by
>> downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that
>> process.
>
> We should still host versioned docs on the website however. Either that or
> we specify "since version x" for each component in the docs with notes on
> behaviour.
>
>
Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by kurt greaves <ku...@instaclustr.com>.
>
> I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t
> know why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by
> downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that
> process.
We should still host versioned docs on the website however. Either that or
we specify "since version x" for each component in the docs with notes on
behaviour.
Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Rahul Singh <ra...@gmail.com>.
I think the issue is one related to UI. If we make it clear on the site, people will not have as much of an issue. I like how Spark does. it. It’s clear as day that 2.3.0 is latest. and older versions are available… Also on the same docs page, it lists the versions available at the TOP. There’s zero confusion.
--
Rahul Singh
rahul.singh@anant.us
Anant Corporation
On Mar 12, 2018, 1:17 PM -0400, Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>, wrote:
> Docs for 3.0 go in the 3.0 branch.
>
> I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t know why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that process.
>
> Jon
>
> > On Mar 12, 2018, at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > It seems like the documentation that should be in the trunk for version 3.0, should include information for users of version 3.0 and 2.1; the documentation that should in 4.0 (when its released), should include information for users of 4.0 and at least one previous version, etc.
> >
> > How about if we do it that way?
> >
> > Kenneth Brotman
> >
> > From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 9:10 AM
> > To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
> >
> > Right now they can’t.
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:03 AM Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > I see how that makes sense Jon but how does a user then select the documentation for the version they are running on the Apache Cassandra web site?
> > >
> > > Kenneth Brotman
> > >
> > > From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 8:40 AM
> > >
> > > To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
> > >
> > > The docs are in tree, meaning they are versioned, and should be written for the version they correspond to. Trunk docs should reflect the current state of trunk, and shouldn’t have caveats for other versions.
> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:15 AM Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoocom.invalid> wrote:
> > > > If we use DataStax’s example, we would have instructions for v3.0 and v2.1. How’s that?
> > > >
> > > > We should have to be instructions for the cloud platforms like AWS but how do you do that and stay vendor neutral?
> > > >
> > > > Kenneth Brotman
> > > >
> > > > From: Hannu Kröger [mailto:hkroger@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 7:40 AM
> > > > To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, a good documentation should somehow include version specific pieces of information. Whether it is nodetool command that came in certain version or parameter for something or something else.
> > > >
> > > > That would very useful. It’s confusing if I see documentation talking about 4.0 specifics and I try to find that in my 3.11.x
> > > >
> > > > Hannu
> > > >
> > > > On 12 Mar 2018, at 16:38, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I’m unclear what versions are most popular right now? What version are you running?
> > > >
> > > > What version should still be supported in the documentation? For example, I’m turning my attention back to writing a section on adding a data center. What versions should I support in that information?
> > > >
> > > > I’m working on it right now. Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Kenneth Brotman
>
Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>.
Docs for 3.0 go in the 3.0 branch.
I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t know why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that process.
Jon
> On Mar 12, 2018, at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> It seems like the documentation that should be in the trunk for version 3.0, should include information for users of version 3.0 and 2.1; the documentation that should in 4.0 (when its released), should include information for users of 4.0 and at least one previous version, etc.
>
> How about if we do it that way?
>
> Kenneth Brotman
>
> From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 9:10 AM
> To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
>
> Right now they can’t.
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:03 AM Kenneth Brotman <kenbrotman@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>> I see how that makes sense Jon but how does a user then select the documentation for the version they are running on the Apache Cassandra web site?
>>
>> Kenneth Brotman
>>
>> From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com <ma...@jonhaddad.com>]
>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 8:40 AM
>>
>> To: user@cassandra.apache.org <ma...@cassandra.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
>>
>> The docs are in tree, meaning they are versioned, and should be written for the version they correspond to. Trunk docs should reflect the current state of trunk, and shouldn’t have caveats for other versions.
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:15 AM Kenneth Brotman <kenbrotman@yahoocom.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>> If we use DataStax’s example, we would have instructions for v3.0 and v2.1. How’s that?
>>>
>>> We should have to be instructions for the cloud platforms like AWS but how do you do that and stay vendor neutral?
>>>
>>> Kenneth Brotman
>>>
>>> From: Hannu Kröger [mailto:hkroger@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>]
>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 7:40 AM
>>> To: user@cassandra.apache.org <ma...@cassandra.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
>>>
>>> In my opinion, a good documentation should somehow include version specific pieces of information. Whether it is nodetool command that came in certain version or parameter for something or something else.
>>>
>>> That would very useful. It’s confusing if I see documentation talking about 4.0 specifics and I try to find that in my 3.11.x
>>>
>>> Hannu
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Mar 2018, at 16:38, Kenneth Brotman <kenbrotman@yahoo.com.INVALID <ma...@yahoo.com.INVALID>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m unclear what versions are most popular right now? What version are you running?
>>>
>>> What version should still be supported in the documentation? For example, I’m turning my attention back to writing a section on adding a data center. What versions should I support in that information?
>>>
>>> I’m working on it right now. Thanks,
>>>
>>> Kenneth Brotman
RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
It seems like the documentation that should be in the trunk for version 3.0, should include information for users of version 3.0 and 2.1; the documentation that should in 4.0 (when its released), should include information for users of 4.0 and at least one previous version, etc.
How about if we do it that way?
Kenneth Brotman
From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 9:10 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Right now they can’t.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:03 AM Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
I see how that makes sense Jon but how does a user then select the documentation for the version they are running on the Apache Cassandra web site?
Kenneth Brotman
From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 8:40 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
The docs are in tree, meaning they are versioned, and should be written for the version they correspond to. Trunk docs should reflect the current state of trunk, and shouldn’t have caveats for other versions.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:15 AM Kenneth Brotman <kenbrotman@yahoocom.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid> > wrote:
If we use DataStax’s example, we would have instructions for v3.0 and v2.1. How’s that?
We should have to be instructions for the cloud platforms like AWS but how do you do that and stay vendor neutral?
Kenneth Brotman
From: Hannu Kröger [mailto:hkroger@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 7:40 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
In my opinion, a good documentation should somehow include version specific pieces of information. Whether it is nodetool command that came in certain version or parameter for something or something else.
That would very useful. It’s confusing if I see documentation talking about 4.0 specifics and I try to find that in my 3.11.x
Hannu
On 12 Mar 2018, at 16:38, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
I’m unclear what versions are most popular right now? What version are you running?
What version should still be supported in the documentation? For example, I’m turning my attention back to writing a section on adding a data center. What versions should I support in that information?
I’m working on it right now. Thanks,
Kenneth Brotman
Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Jonathan Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>.
Right now they can’t.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:03 AM Kenneth Brotman
<ke...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> I see how that makes sense Jon but how does a user then select the
> documentation for the version they are running on the Apache Cassandra web
> site?
>
>
>
> Kenneth Brotman
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 8:40 AM
>
>
> *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
>
>
>
> The docs are in tree, meaning they are versioned, and should be written
> for the version they correspond to. Trunk docs should reflect the current
> state of trunk, and shouldn’t have caveats for other versions.
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:15 AM Kenneth Brotman <
> kenbrotman@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> If we use DataStax’s example, we would have instructions for v3.0 and
> v2.1. How’s that?
>
>
>
> We should have to be instructions for the cloud platforms like AWS but how
> do you do that and stay vendor neutral?
>
>
>
> Kenneth Brotman
>
>
>
> *From:* Hannu Kröger [mailto:hkroger@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 7:40 AM
> *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
>
>
>
> In my opinion, a good documentation should somehow include version
> specific pieces of information. Whether it is nodetool command that came in
> certain version or parameter for something or something else.
>
>
>
> That would very useful. It’s confusing if I see documentation talking
> about 4.0 specifics and I try to find that in my 3.11.x
>
>
>
> Hannu
>
>
>
> On 12 Mar 2018, at 16:38, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I’m unclear what versions are most popular right now? What version are you
> running?
>
>
>
> What version should still be supported in the documentation? For example,
> I’m turning my attention back to writing a section on adding a data
> center. What versions should I support in that information?
>
>
>
> I’m working on it right now. Thanks,
>
>
>
> Kenneth Brotman
>
>
>
>
RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I see how that makes sense Jon but how does a user then select the documentation for the version they are running on the Apache Cassandra web site?
Kenneth Brotman
From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:jon@jonhaddad.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 8:40 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
The docs are in tree, meaning they are versioned, and should be written for the version they correspond to. Trunk docs should reflect the current state of trunk, and shouldn’t have caveats for other versions.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:15 AM Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
If we use DataStax’s example, we would have instructions for v3.0 and v2.1. How’s that?
We should have to be instructions for the cloud platforms like AWS but how do you do that and stay vendor neutral?
Kenneth Brotman
From: Hannu Kröger [mailto:hkroger@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 7:40 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
In my opinion, a good documentation should somehow include version specific pieces of information. Whether it is nodetool command that came in certain version or parameter for something or something else.
That would very useful. It’s confusing if I see documentation talking about 4.0 specifics and I try to find that in my 3.11.x
Hannu
On 12 Mar 2018, at 16:38, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
I’m unclear what versions are most popular right now? What version are you running?
What version should still be supported in the documentation? For example, I’m turning my attention back to writing a section on adding a data center. What versions should I support in that information?
I’m working on it right now. Thanks,
Kenneth Brotman
Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Jonathan Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>.
The docs are in tree, meaning they are versioned, and should be written for
the version they correspond to. Trunk docs should reflect the current state
of trunk, and shouldn’t have caveats for other versions.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:15 AM Kenneth Brotman
<ke...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> If we use DataStax’s example, we would have instructions for v3.0 and
> v2.1. How’s that?
>
>
>
> We should have to be instructions for the cloud platforms like AWS but how
> do you do that and stay vendor neutral?
>
>
>
> Kenneth Brotman
>
>
>
> *From:* Hannu Kröger [mailto:hkroger@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 7:40 AM
> *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
>
>
>
> In my opinion, a good documentation should somehow include version
> specific pieces of information. Whether it is nodetool command that came in
> certain version or parameter for something or something else.
>
>
>
> That would very useful. It’s confusing if I see documentation talking
> about 4.0 specifics and I try to find that in my 3.11.x
>
>
>
> Hannu
>
>
>
> On 12 Mar 2018, at 16:38, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I’m unclear what versions are most popular right now? What version are you
> running?
>
>
>
> What version should still be supported in the documentation? For example,
> I’m turning my attention back to writing a section on adding a data
> center. What versions should I support in that information?
>
>
>
> I’m working on it right now. Thanks,
>
>
>
> Kenneth Brotman
>
>
>
RE: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
If we use DataStax’s example, we would have instructions for v3.0 and v2.1. How’s that?
We should have to be instructions for the cloud platforms like AWS but how do you do that and stay vendor neutral?
Kenneth Brotman
From: Hannu Kröger [mailto:hkroger@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 7:40 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
In my opinion, a good documentation should somehow include version specific pieces of information. Whether it is nodetool command that came in certain version or parameter for something or something else.
That would very useful. It’s confusing if I see documentation talking about 4.0 specifics and I try to find that in my 3.11.x
Hannu
On 12 Mar 2018, at 16:38, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
I’m unclear what versions are most popular right now? What version are you running?
What version should still be supported in the documentation? For example, I’m turning my attention back to writing a section on adding a data center. What versions should I support in that information?
I’m working on it right now. Thanks,
Kenneth Brotman
Re: What versions should the documentation support now?
Posted by Hannu Kröger <hk...@gmail.com>.
In my opinion, a good documentation should somehow include version specific pieces of information. Whether it is nodetool command that came in certain version or parameter for something or something else.
That would very useful. It’s confusing if I see documentation talking about 4.0 specifics and I try to find that in my 3.11.x
Hannu
> On 12 Mar 2018, at 16:38, Kenneth Brotman <ke...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> I’m unclear what versions are most popular right now? What version are you running?
>
> What version should still be supported in the documentation? For example, I’m turning my attention back to writing a section on adding a data center. What versions should I support in that information?
>
> I’m working on it right now. Thanks,
>
> Kenneth Brotman