See reply below. On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:20 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Jessica Tomechak > <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:39 PM > > To: Chip Childers > > Cc: [email protected] > > 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 > The community should keep the 3.x Word for Windows files until we can replace them with a nice XML-based docs repo. We can easily change the copyright and logo to make community versions, thus purging the objectionable license from the repo. Does this approach sound satisfactory to all? BTW, the XML-based docs are going to happen very very soon; we are more than halfway there, mostly thanks to the superhuman efforts of Radhika PC. Jessica T. CloudStack Tech Pubs
