Thursday 19 May 2011 3:51:18 am

Has the naming convention been designed to confuse new users?  It bears no relation to the eZ Publish documentation, or the Enterprise version.  How on earth is someone supposed to know which documentation they should be reading?

Saturday 21 May 2011 12:57:20 am

If the Community Project is not going to keep its own documentation, and use eZ Systems docs as the canonical, then how will the documentation be accurate as the Community Project releases at a faster rate of knots than the Enterprise?

While the mapping will certainly provide clarity, it's an unfortunate obstacle to understanding & developing with eZ Publish.  I like the simplicity of the date convention - having a shared convention as a base, say "4.5E" and "4.5C_2011.5" would be fugly, but would negate any need for such a map?

Thoughts?

Wednesday 27 July 2011 2:24:00 am

Hi Geoff,

I don't think the versioning scheme is likely to change. However we are looking at ways to improve the documentation through means of being able to tag articles with their relevant releases. This means that articles which apply for both the enterprise and community release, will be marked as such, whereas documentation on new features only applicable to the community version, would then be labelled accordingly.

This way it is possible to use the large body of existing documentation, which is valid for both, and we don't need to duplicate these resources. At the same time it allows for granular differences as needed.

Best regards,

Ole M.

--
Ole Marius Smestad
Lead Engineer eZ Publish
Member of the Community Project Board