You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-user@james.apache.org by Steve Brewin <sb...@synsys.com> on 2003/06/12 11:11:10 UTC
Correct version of the xdocs?
Hi,
Is http://james.apache.org/index.html using pages generated from the correct
version of the xdocs?
For instance, http://james.apache.org/provided_matchers_2_1.html lists
"AttachmentFileNameIs" as a provided matcher, but this is in neither the
source or binary distributions of 2.1.3. Nor is it mentioned in the xdocs of
the 2.1.3 source distribution.
"AttachmentFileNameIs" is in the v2.2 and v3 alphas, but as
http://james.apache.org/documentation_2_1.html states, and as the name
implies, this documentation relates to v2.1.
I assume the policy is for the online documents to relate to the "Latest and
Stable: James v2.1.3" release?
-- Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Correct version of the xdocs?
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> > Actually, those docs SHOULD be for James v2.1. The only ones
> > that should be off-kilter are the javadocs. Are you seeing
> > anything else that seems out of synch?
> Yes. That was the reason for the initial question...
> For instance, http://james.apache.org/provided_matchers_2_1.html lists
> "AttachmentFileNameIs" as a provided matcher
Ah ... jumped the gun a bit on committing that change to the web site.
There aren't a lot of those, as you can see from
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-james/src/xdocs/?sortby=date#dirlist.
We're going to have to fix some of those names (and add some redirects) when
we do the v2.2 release and update the web site. Putting versions in the URL
means replication or other problems.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Correct version of the xdocs?
Posted by Steve Brewin <sb...@synsys.com>.
Noel,
> > > Is http://james.apache.org/index.html using pages generated from
> > > the correct version of the xdocs?
>
> As Danny said, we'll be separating the site docs into its own
> repository.
>
> > As a quick fix, how about updating the docs. in the CVS
> head so that the
> > documentation link on the main page reads "Latest
> Development Version"
> > rather than "James 2.1 documentation"
>
> Actually, those docs SHOULD be for James v2.1. The only ones
> that should be
> off-kilter are the javadocs. Are you seeing anything else
> that seems out of
> synch?
Yes. That was the reason for the initial question...
<For instance, http://james.apache.org/provided_matchers_2_1.html lists
<"AttachmentFileNameIs" as a provided matcher, but this is in neither the
<source or binary distributions of 2.1.3. Nor is it mentioned in the xdocs
of
<the 2.1.3 source distribution.
-- Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Correct version of the xdocs?
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> > Is http://james.apache.org/index.html using pages generated from
> > the correct version of the xdocs?
As Danny said, we'll be separating the site docs into its own repository.
> As a quick fix, how about updating the docs. in the CVS head so that the
> documentation link on the main page reads "Latest Development Version"
> rather than "James 2.1 documentation"
Actually, those docs SHOULD be for James v2.1. The only ones that should be
off-kilter are the javadocs. Are you seeing anything else that seems out of
synch?
> Ultimately, I too think it would probably be a better idea to have
> the docs for the current stable version.
Anyone who wants to help re-org the web site is welcome to help. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Correct version of the xdocs?
Posted by Steve Brewin <sb...@synsys.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Angus [mailto:danny@apache.org]
> Sent: 12 June 2003 11:42
> To: James Users List
> Subject: RE: Correct version of the xdocs?
>
>
> > Is http://james.apache.org/index.html using pages generated from
> > the correct
> > version of the xdocs?
>
> The docs on the site refer to the HEAD of cvs, or v3.
> It would probably be a better idea to have the docs for the
> current stable version, but for that we need to re-jig our
> cvs repos, and our site publishing guff. Unfortunately we
> don't have as much capacity for doing things quickly as would
> be ideal.
>
As a quick fix, how about updating the docs. in the CVS head so that the
documentation link on the main page reads "Latest Development Version"
rather than "James 2.1 documentation" and add a line in the release section
saying to read the documentation which comes in the download.
This would remove some of the ambiguity without changing the process in
anyway. Ultimately, I too think it would probably be a better idea to have
the docs for the
current stable version.
Happy to submit a patch if its agreed that this is the right thing to do.
-- Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Correct version of the xdocs?
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
> Is http://james.apache.org/index.html using pages generated from
> the correct
> version of the xdocs?
The docs on the site refer to the HEAD of cvs, or v3.
It would probably be a better idea to have the docs for the current stable version, but for that we need to re-jig our cvs repos, and our site publishing guff. Unfortunately we don't have as much capacity for doing things quickly as would be ideal.
As an interim I xpect we could check out the website from the branch instead, could we?
> I assume the policy is for the online documents to relate to the
> "Latest and
> Stable: James v2.1.3" release?
No, Thats your mistake, the docs are for the version underdevelopment in CVS, and it's less a policy more a state-of-affairs.
d.