On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Durity, Sean R <sean_r_dur...@homedepot.com> wrote: > The DataStax documentation is far superior to the Apache Cassandra attempts. > Apache is just poor with holes all over, goofy examples, etc. It would take > a team of people working full time to try and catch up with DataStax. I have > met the DataStax team; they are doing good work. I think it would be far > more effective to support/encourage the DataStax documentation efforts. I > think they accept corrections/suggestions – perhaps publish that email > address…
And we accept patches, nothing to stop the documentation team at Datastax (or anyone else) from contributing changes here. > What is missing most from DataStax (and most software) is the discussions of > why/when you would change a particular parameter and what should change if > the parameter changes. If DataStax created a community comments section > (somewhat similar to what MySQL tried), that would be something worth > contributing to. I love good docs (like DataStax); Apache Cassandra is > hopelessly behind. This sounds pretty defeatist to me, particularly in the context of a discussion about how to improve the Apache documentation. > And, yes, the good documentation from DataStax was a strong reason why our > company pursued Cassandra as a data technology. It was better than almost > any other open source project we knew. > > > > (Please, let’s refrain from the high pri emails to the user group list…) > > > > > > Sean Durity > > > > From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrot...@yahoo.com.INVALID] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:02 AM > To: user@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: What versions should the documentation support now? > Importance: High > > > > This went nowhere quick. Come on everyone. The website has to support > users who are on “supported” versions of the software. That’s more than one > version. There was a JIRA on this months ago. You are smart people. I just > gave a perfect answer and ended up burning a bunch of time for nothing. Now > its back on you. Are you going to properly support the software you create > or not! > > > > Kenneth Brotman > > > > From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrot...@yahoo.com.INVALID] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:03 PM > To: user@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: RE: What versions should the documentation support now? > > > > I made sub directories “2_x” and “3_x” under docs and put a copy of the doc > in each. No links were changed yet. We can work on the files first and > discuss how we want to change the template and links. I did the pull > request already. > > > > Kenneth Brotman > > > > From: Jonathan Haddad [mailto:j...@jonhaddad.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:19 PM > To: user@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: What versions should the documentation support now? > > > > Yes, I agree, we should host versioned docs. I don't think anyone is > against it, it's a matter of someone having the time to do it. > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:14 PM kurt greaves <k...@instaclustr.com> wrote: > > I’ve never heard of anyone shipping docs for multiple versions, I don’t know > why we’d do that. You can get the docs for any version you need by > downloading C*, the docs are included. I’m a firm -1 on changing that > process. > > We should still host versioned docs on the website however. Either that or > we specify "since version x" for each component in the docs with notes on > behaviour. -- Eric Evans john.eric.ev...@gmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@cassandra.apache.org
