Open Stack

I don’t disagree we should be listening to our users, Tom. We are not ignoring the reporter; we are genuinely taking his concerns into question by starting this list. 

I have some questions for you, Tom. If you could take the time to answer for us:

1. We cannot backport any bug fixes, new features, or support the documentation as the branch is deleted. How do you suggest we plan to deal with potential incoming bug requests, or requests for support on the documentation?
 
2. OpenStack, as a community, agreed upon supporting 2 previous releases to whatever is the current. Why do you recommend we divert from this action? We are a community project, like the others. Individual projects are working hard at ensuring that upgrading is seamless. Should we not be encouraging users to upgrade and work on the best documentation to help them move forward? http://docs.openstack.org/ops-guide/ops-upgrades.html 

3. Who would take on planning this architecture and future initiatives? We are not rebuffing you with a simple ‘no, Won’t Fix’. We do not have the resources, the team, and the time to implement such a solution right now. If you can tell me who, how, and when we can implement a ‘proposed solution’ – I would love to sit down, write a spec down with you, and come up with a best course of action ☺

Thanks,

Alex

On 1/24/17, 1:22 PM, "Tom Fifield" <tom at openstack.org> wrote:

    On 24/01/17 20:53, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
    > On 2017-01-24 13:48, Tom Fifield  wrote:
    >> On 24/01/17 20:47, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
    >>> On 2017-01-24 13:44, Tom Fifield  wrote:
    >>>> Top posting with intent :)
    >>>>
    >>>> We have someone who is representing a class of people that are almost
    >>>> certainly more than 5% of our users and we chose not to help? No two
    >>>> ways about it - with the minimal/once-off effort involved, that is just
    >>>> plain wrong.
    >>>>
    >>>> To fix Icehouse docs not existing, all one would need to do is copy from
    >>>> the old server to the new. We broke this, and we should fix it.
    >>>
    >>> And the fix is a redirect like we did for all previous releases.
    >>
    >> Except that isn't a fix - see the comments from your users :)
    >
    > Tom,
    >
    > we retired Icehouse in April 2016 already. And even before that there
    > was no way to go from docs.o.o/index.html to any Icehouse content.
    >
    > This is the first report of an Icehouse user - that somehow had old
    > bookmarks or whatever obsolete link that pointed to an Icehouse
    > Configuration reference page,
    
    The thing is - the Icehouse (or Juno, or Kilo, or Liberty) configuration 
    reference is not 'old' or 'obsolete' for these users. It's an integral 
    document to keep their cloud running, or prepare for their upgrade to a 
    newer version. It's entirely valid for them to bookmark a link, or 
    follow an Ask OpenStack posting that sends them to a useful page.
    
    
    The OpenStack docs team is not in the position to make the decision 
    about when a cloud is online, offline, ready for upgrade, insecure, 
    unstable or obsolete. It exists to serve the users who are in that 
    position. As such, content must remain until when our users no longer 
    need it. It's surprising to see how much resistance there is to this 
    idea, given it takes very minimal effort to keep an existing HTML page 
    online :) Our best data on users indicates that we no longer need 
    Austin, Bexar, Cactus or Diablo, but there are still significant numbers 
    on Icehouse and later.
    
    So, why not help Alvaro? Martin? Cristina? Randy? Mikhail? Renato? 
    Christian? Tomo? Graeme? Vaibhav? These are just a few of the people 
    running Icehouse that need this doc to do their job. How about it?
    
    _______________________________________________
    OpenStack-docs mailing list
    OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org
    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs