Hello, On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:59:51 +1100 Nigel Williams wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Christian Balzer <chibi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Then we come to a typical problem for fast evolving SW like Ceph, > > things that are not present in older versions. > > > I was going to post on this too (I had similar frustrations), and would > like to propose that a move to splitting the documentation by versions: > > OLD > http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/cache-tiering/ > > > NEW > http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/hammer/rados/operations/cache-tiering/ > > http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/infernalis/rados/operations/cache-tiering/ > > http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/jewel/rados/operations/cache-tiering/ > Yup, that's a nice approach and besides Postgres Ganeti and MySQL uses that setup as well, at the top of my mind. Given that backports in the past have introduced new features (osd_scrub_sleep comes to mind), an even finer grained split by actual version number might be called for. Christian > and so on. > > When a new version is started, the documentation should be 100% cloned > and the tree restructured around the version. It could equally be a > drop-down on the page to select the version. > > Postgres for example uses a similar mechanism: > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/ > > Note the version numbers are embedded in the URL. I like their commenting > mechanism too as it provides a running narrative of changes that should > be considered as practice develops around things to do or avoid. > > Once the documentation is cloned for the new version, all the > inapplicable material should be removed and the new features/practice > changes should be added. -- Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer chibi@xxxxxxx Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications http://www.gol.com/ _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |