On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Jessica Tomechak <jessica.tomec...@gmail.com> wrote: > See inline below for my reply to David's question about purging the docs > directory in the repo. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:39 PM > To: Chip Childers > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Easy task for folks looking to get involved > > > > <snip> > >> >Here are the folders that I have outstanding questions / issues with: > > <snip> > > >> docs 100 - SKIPPED - I'm not sure how the documentation folder will > >>> get the copyright and license terms changes. Can one of the technical > >>> writers from the Citrix team take a look and help here? > > >>Jessica - how soon can we purge this directory from the ASF repo? > >>Nothing here that should require adding license headers. > > > So to answer your question with a question: do we want to purge the docs > directory, or do we want to replace it with an open-source version of the > legacy docs? > > If the Apache repo doesn't need to preserve history from before the > donation, then the directory can be removed whenever you feel like it. We > are replacing it with a separate XML-based doc repo for v3.0 forward > (coming soon!) Obviously, keeping Citrix-copyrighted Word for Windows files > would be highly undesirable in an Apache Foundation code repo. > > However, maybe we need to make CC-BY-SA versions of the docs to support > users of 2.2.x versions. I still update the 2.2.x docs, especially if a > major inaccuracy is found. I publish the updates to > http://docs.cloudstack.org. > > As for the 2.0 and 2.1 documents in the docs directory, I don't remember > ever touching them. They are still copyrighted to Cloud.com. > > > Jessica T. > > CloudStack Tech Pubs
2.2.x, 2.1.x and anything prior to the 3.0.x of CloudStack was not part of the software grant to the ASF - so docs related to those versions don't seem relevant since there will never be an Apache CloudStack 2.x.x. Just so we are clear, we are talking about 'rm -rf docs' in the source repo? --David
