Open Stack

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com> wrote:

> 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 Related to our critical Bug #1191447: Clearly mark outdated doc pages,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" ?
>
>
Yep, as Andreas said, we do this already but just haven't yet for Icehouse.

Let us know the root cause of the request.

Thanks,
Anne


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-docs mailing list
> Openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20140502/c0e26f8e/attachment.html>