Open Stack

On 05/02/2014 09:07 AM, Tom Fifield wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Related to our critical Bug #1191447: Clearly mark outdated doc pages,
> I have proposed a new blueprint for Juno
>
> "Add release version to config reference options"
>
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+spec/add-release-version-to-config-reference-options
>
>
> The continuously published configuration reference contains tables with
> information about all configuration options in OpenStack.
>
> Currently, these tables are updated from master, and always have the
> latest information in them.
>
> However, there continues to be users of older releases who still need
> reference information for their configuration options.
>
> The toolchain used to generate the tables is able to operate on any git
> repository checkout, meaning it can also generate historical tables.
>
> This blueprint proposes to automatically provide some form of release
> information with the configuration option by comparing the options
> generated from two different repositories.
>
> For example
> * an option that appears in a Havana repository, but does not appear in
> an Icehouse repository was deprecated in Havana.
> * an option that does not exist in Grizzly, but appears in Havana is a
> new option to Havana
>
> These sort of cases should then be communicated to the reader. A
> selection between three potential forms for this information are envisaged:
> 1. tables are updated with an additional column that provides release
> information (eg "available from Icehouse onwards", "deprecated in Essex")
> 2. a table of "new and removed" options between Icehouse and Juno is
> added as an appendix
> 3. the configuration reference is branched for the Juno release, with
> different versions of the tables in each

We do branch the configuration reference already, so the current version 
should be Icehouse only - since we haven't branched - and there's a 
Havana version out as well.

I like your idea with "new in Icehouse" etc., still I fear the basic 
problem is that users look at the wrong guide. What triggered your 
suggestion?

Do we need to say more prominently "Configuration reference for ICEHOUSE" ?

Andreas
-- 
  Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
   SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
    GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
     GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126