Bug 567717

Summary:	JON231 production docs have links to design documentation as a supplement for doc
Product:	[Other] RHQ Project	Reporter:	wes hayutin <whayutin>
Component:	Documentation	Assignee:	Deon Ballard <dlackey>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Corey Welton <cwelton>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	1.4	CC:	bkearney, cwelton, jha
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	2.4	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2010-08-12 16:50:22 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	558582

Description wes hayutin 2010-02-23 18:21:18 UTC

Description of problem:

Example here:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/JBoss_ON/2.3/html/Feature_Guide/sect-Feature_Guide-Administration-High_Availability.html

This doc links out design doc. The design doc is a community maintained page that does not appear to be reviewed by the documents team.

The top link is:
 http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/JBoss_ON/2.3/html/Feature_Guide/index.html

There are additional places where the design doc is linked, I'll try to find more and paste them into the bug.
Thanks

Comment 1 Corey Welton 2010-02-23 21:28:59 UTC

Changing tracker to FoundInRHQ1.3.1

Comment 2 Deon Ballard 2010-02-23 23:18:57 UTC

I found six or seven references to the RHQ wiki (for design docs) in the Features Guide, and I've removed them. I just need to get commit perms to http://svn.jboss.org so I can check them in. :)

I'll go through the other docs as well.

Comment 3 Deon Ballard 2010-02-24 15:59:10 UTC

Bryan brought up a good point in the meeting: what is the purpose of these links? Are they to supply additional content that is not in the guides already, and (if so) should that content be pulled in?

My initial take is this. It does look like the doc writer supplied and/or kept those links instead of pulling in the content. I think. However, since a couple of releases of JON are coming up very quickly, I think the best thing to do it focus on pulling that content into JON 3.0 and just leaving the 2.3 docs as they are. (The links basically all reference the high availability design docs, which have changed since 2.3 was released.)

Thoughts?

Comment 4 Deon Ballard 2010-02-24 16:05:21 UTC

"As they are" meaning, with the links removed but otherwise the same.

Comment 5 wes hayutin 2010-02-24 16:07:45 UTC

I agree, as time goes on the design doc will become more and more irrelevant to JON 231.  Pulling the content into JON30 is a good idea.  I dont think pulling the content into JON231 is necessary.

Comment 6 Deon Ballard 2010-02-24 21:25:18 UTC

Nice.

I've gone ahead and spun new docs which should be live on rh.com tomorrow, and I've checked in the changes. The edits *only* remove the links to the design docs.

Comment 7 Deon Ballard 2010-02-25 23:07:54 UTC

The link in the description is updated so that the design doc reference is no longer there. I'm changing the status to modified so that QE can verify and close this.

Comment 8 Corey Welton 2010-03-25 02:18:31 UTC

QA Verified.

Comment 9 Corey Welton 2010-08-12 16:50:22 UTC

Mass-closure of verified bugs against JON.