Document revision numbering system
Hi all - As I am working on moving Koha docs to XML, I would like to start using a uniform system of numbering document revisions. I noticed while working on converting the SGML version of Nick Rosasco's manual that he had numbered the first version as "0.1." So what should I now use for the new XML revision? "0.2" obviously, but what would then justify moving to version 1.0? A google search didn't produce any results that were really helpful. I did see that Gnome documentation is supposed to be numbered according to the version of Gnome that is current. In other words, if a document is produced when Gnome version 1.x is the most current, then that document version starts with "1" and so forth. (For example, the first version of a document produced when Gnome 2.x is the most current would be version 2.0, the next revision would be 2.1, etc., until Gnome version 3.0 is released.) I suppose we could do something similar for Koha. That would change Nick's version 0.1 to 1.0, and the XML version to 1.1, while Brooke's Newbie Guide would be version 2.0 right from the start -- which seems a little confusing to me. Does anybody have any suggestions and/or strong feelings about a document revision numbering system? -- Stephen Hedges Skemotah Solutions, USA www.skemotah.com -- shedges@skemotah.com
On 2004-10-31 20:22, Stephen Hedges wrote:
A google search didn't produce any results that were really helpful. I did see that Gnome documentation is supposed to be numbered according to the version of Gnome that is current. In other words, if a document is produced when Gnome version 1.x is the most current, then that document version starts with "1" and so forth. (For example, the first version of a document produced when Gnome 2.x is the most current would be version 2.0, the next revision would be 2.1, etc., until Gnome version 3.0 is released.) I suppose we could do something similar for Koha. That would change Nick's version 0.1 to 1.0, and the XML version to 1.1, while Brooke's Newbie Guide would be version 2.0 right from the start -- which seems a little confusing to me.
Does anybody have any suggestions and/or strong feelings about a document revision numbering system?
I like the idea that documentation is tied to the code it documents, by version number. I am much less interested in how many iterations a document has gone through, than I am interested in which version of a page is documented. -kolibrie
On 2004-11-02 19:30:39 +0000 Nathan Gray <kolibrie@southernvirginia.edu> wrote:
On 2004-10-31 20:22, Stephen Hedges wrote:
Does anybody have any suggestions and/or strong feelings about a document revision numbering system? I like the idea that documentation is tied to the code it documents, by version number. I am much less interested in how many iterations a document has gone through, than I am interested in which version of a page is documented.
I like this. I would probably have made 2.0.x release tarballs more often if there had been more documentation updates to include. How about using 2.0.2, 2.0.2p1, 2.0.2p2 and so on? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Unsolicited attachments to the pipex address deleted Will HLF fund tree-killings? http://www.thewalks.co.uk/
On 2004-10-31 20:22, Stephen Hedges wrote:
A google search didn't produce any results that were really helpful. I did see that Gnome documentation is supposed to be numbered according to the version of Gnome that is current. In other words, if a document is produced when Gnome version 1.x is the most current, then that document version starts with "1" and so forth. (For example, the first version of a document produced when Gnome 2.x is the most current would be version 2.0, the next revision would be 2.1, etc., until Gnome version 3.0 is released.) I suppose we could do something similar for Koha. That would change Nick's version 0.1 to 1.0, and the XML version to 1.1, while Brooke's Newbie Guide would be version 2.0 right from the start -- which seems a little confusing to me.
Does anybody have any suggestions and/or strong feelings about a document revision numbering system?
I like the idea that documentation is tied to the code it documents, by version number. I am much less interested in how many iterations a document has gone through, than I am interested in which version of a page is documented. -kolibrie
participants (4)
-
MJ Ray -
Nathan Gray -
Nathan Gray -
Stephen Hedges