On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Nigel Williams <nigel.d.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Adam Tygart <mozes@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> The docs are already split by version, although it doesn't help that >> it isn't linked in an obvious manner. >> >> http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/cache-tiering/ > > Is there any reason to keep this "master" (version-less variant) given > how much confusion it causes? > > I think I noticed the version split one time back but it didn't lodge > in my mind, and when I looked for something today I hit the "master" > and there were no hits for the version (which I should have been > looking at). This is certainly a real issue. I have regularly run into people who have searched for the cephfs documentation, seen the master version, and then got confused when the master functionality wasn't available on whatever stable branch they were running. Some projects have big angry warning banners at the top of their master branch documentation, I think perhaps we should do that too, and at the same time try to find a way to steer google hits to the latest stable branch docs rather than to master. John > > I'd be glad to contribute to the documentation effort. For example I > would like to be able to ask questions around the terminology that is > scattered through the documentation that I think needs better > explanation. I'm not sure if pull-requests that try to annotate what > is there would mean some parts would become a wall of text whereas the > explanation would be better suited as a (more informal) comment-thread > at the bottom of the page that can be browsed (mainly by beginners > trying to navigate an unfamiliar architecture). > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |