From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:33:27 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20160215215024.GA22646@jasmine> <20160216162504.GC5914@solar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42232) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aViZi-0001kd-NE for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:34:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aViZe-0006uU-MF for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:34:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:39583) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aViZe-0006uQ-DZ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:34:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aViZe-0002J7-91 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:34:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20160216162504.GC5914@solar> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andreas Enge Cc: 22687@debbugs.gnu.org Andreas Enge writes: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:06:40AM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> Many other projects publish online manuals for both stable and >> development versions. As our releases are a little far apart and we’re >> encouraging to do “guix pull” (so users really run the development >> version) I think it would indeed make sense to also publish an >> up-to-date version of the manual along with the manual for the latest >> release. > > Or alternatively, release more often :-) I was not courageous enough to suggest that, but this does sound like a good idea. > I wonder whether we should not make a point release after each security > update instead of encouraging people to use "guix pull" (but we would > quickly arrive at 0.9.9 now, after which only 1.0.0 would be a reasonable > option to keep numerical and lexicographical ordering consistent). > Or a point-point release as 0.9.0.1 and so on. I would like that. We could make patch releases for each time we merge core-updates / security-fixes into master. ~~ Ricardo