[drupal-docs] Tag handbook pages with major versions

[Laura Scott]

+1 from me for each version having its own version. As Drupal is 
becoming quite rich and stable with each release, it only makes sense to 
have handbook versions for each release, as some websites may remain in 
one release for several years.

I love the tagging idea, too. Some things will apply across versions, 
and should be marked as such. It would be good if the version number 
were an option for creating new handbook pages, too.

Laura


Farsheed wrote:

>It seems that having a way to freeze and export
>(Djun?) the handbook concurrently with a Drupal
>release would make the most sense.  Then the handbook
>pages would be updated over time, and when the next
>release happens, the handbook is frozen again.   
>
>Also I would suggest we not worry about going back and
>tagging the existing pages in the handbook (or tagging
>at all really), but rather focus on agreeing to a
>forward thinking way to manage the handbook,
>especially as 4.7 comes out.
>
>To me, I feel that there should be a new handbook for
>each new version of Drupal, or at least periodically
>frozen copies of the handbook that correspond to
>releases.  Since everything else on Drupal.org is
>managed this way, it seems that documentation should
>also follow.
>
>Farsheed
>
>
>Farsheed
>
>--- Kieran Lal <kieran at civicspacelabs.org> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Sorry to be the wet blanket on the party.
>>
>>How many pages are we talking about?   How long will
>>it take to tag  
>>each page?  What skill level is necessary to know
>>what version a page  
>>should be tagged to?
>>
>>Even tackling a very small subsection of the
>>handbook such at http:// 
>>drupal.org/handbook/modules and
>>http://drupal.org/handbook/config/ 
>>contribmodules is going to take a lot of expertise
>>in confirming what  
>>modules these apply to.
>>
>>Do we copy the 4.6 pages and make them child pages
>>of the 4.7 pages,  
>>or do we just update them to 4.7?
>>
>>Kieran
>>On Sep 9, 2005, at 12:02 AM, Bèr Kessels wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Taxonomy pages will not be usefull, indeed. Still
>>>      
>>>
>>this is teh  
>>    
>>
>>>easiest way to
>>>get there.
>>>The other options are in-body text (ugly) or a big
>>>      
>>>
>>rewrite of book  
>>    
>>
>>>(far too
>>>high aim).
>>>
>>>PLease, if we want to go trough with this, it must
>>>      
>>>
>>at least be  
>>    
>>
>>>doable ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>Op vrijdag 09 september 2005 04:24, schreef
>>>      
>>>
>>Charlie Lowe:
>>    
>>
>>>>Good points. What is the advantage of using
>>>>        
>>>>
>>taxonomy to tag the  
>>    
>>
>>>>pages?
>>>>Is it just to make it easy--select the
>>>>        
>>>>
>>term--rather than editing the
>>    
>>
>>>>text and including it in the body? We will be
>>>>        
>>>>
>>categorizing the pages,
>>    
>>
>>>>but will the resultant taxonomy displays that the
>>>>        
>>>>
>>tags provide be  
>>    
>>
>>>>useful?
>>>>
>>>>puregin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>On 7 Sep 2005, at 7:37 PM, Charlie Lowe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>Version tagging is a great idea. But before we
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>jump into this,   
>>    
>>
>>>>>>there
>>>>>>are a few things we ought to talk about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>This begs the question, 'how will tagging be
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>used?'
>>    
>>
>>>>>  Do we want to be able to select a Drupal
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>version and see the   
>>    
>>
>>>>>handbook
>>>>>corresponding to our selection?
>>>>>
>>>>>  How will book structure and taxonomy interact?
>>>>>
>>>>>  How will 'missing' content be handled?  For
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>example, if there  
>>    
>>
>>>>>is  no
>>>>>content for 'administering blocks' tagged for
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>4.6, do we display a
>>    
>>
>>>>>blank page?  Give a warning and fall back to an
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>earlier version?   
>>    
>>
>>>>>How
>>>>>will book navigation work?
>>>>>
>>>>>  Or perhaps we just want to be able to display
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>all tags associated
>>    
>>
>>>>>with the page.
>>>>>
>>>>>  I guess all of this is to say - I'm a bit
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>uneasy that we're   
>>    
>>
>>>>>grasping
>>>>>at tagging to try to impose some external
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>structure on   
>>    
>>
>>>>>documentation
>>>>>which is in parts fundamentally lacking in
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>cohesion  (pardon me for
>>    
>>
>>>>>saying so).
>>>>>
>>>>>As far as versioning goes, I think it's a great
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>idea.  But  
>>    
>>
>>>>>versioning
>>>>>by tagging seems to be the wrong approach.  How
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>would we handle
>>    
>>
>>>>>branches?  What about content that is
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>independent of version?
>>    
>>
>>>>>    Djun
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>Bèr
>>>-- 
>>>| Bèr Kessels | webschuur.com | website
>>>      
>>>
>>development |
>>    
>>
>>>| Turnhoutsebaan 34/3 | 2140 Antwerpen | België |
>>>| IM: ber at jabber.org.uk | MSN: berkessels at gmx.net
>>>      
>>>
>>|
>>    
>>
>>>| v.card:
>>>      
>>>
>>http://webschuur.com/sites/webschuur.com/files/ 
>>    
>>
>>>berkessels.vcf
>>>| pub.key:
>>>      
>>>
>>http://webschuur.com/sites/webschuur.com/files/ 
>>    
>>
>>>berkessels.asc
>>>| pers: bler.webschuur.com | prof:
>>>      
>>>
>>www.webschuur.com |
>>    
>>
>>>-- 
>>>[ drupal-docs |
>>>      
>>>
>>http://lists.drupal.org/listinfo/drupal-docs ]
>>    
>>
>>--
>>[ drupal-docs |
>>http://lists.drupal.org/listinfo/drupal-docs ]
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>	
>		
>______________________________________________________
>Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
>http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://drupal3.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20050910/36370949/attachment.htm