Bug 983951
Summary: | 4.1. Step 3 should be similar as in RPM | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [JBoss] JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6 | Reporter: | Pavel Janousek <pjanouse> |
Component: | Documentation | Assignee: | Lucas Costi <lcosti> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Russell Dickenson <rdickens> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 6.1.0 | CC: | brian.stansberry, lcosti, pkremens |
Target Milestone: | GA | ||
Target Release: | EAP 6.2.0 | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: |
Build: CSProcessor Builder Version 1.11
Build Name: 6895, Installation Guide-6.1-2
Build Date: 11-07-2013 14:10:24
Topic ID: 12710-458133 [Specified]
|
|
Last Closed: | 2013-12-15 16:16:33 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Pavel Janousek
2013-07-12 11:24:28 UTC
I have altered step 3 to be similar to step 4, with a warning about copying configuration files from previous versions. Change made to topic 12710 (rev. 548437) The change will be reflected in the next document build, and the status will be changed to ON_QA when it is ready for review. Changes are on-stage and ready for review (Revision 2.0-7): http://documentation-devel.engineering.redhat.com/docs/en-US/JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform/6.2/html-single/Installation_Guide/index.html#Upgrade_the_JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform_6_ZIP_Installation Verified (during EAP 6.2.0 testing cycle). Attention: Brian I appreciate that in this instance we (Docs) provided instructions which were inaccurate. As to discussing such changes with Engineering, which types of changes would you prefer be discussed in advance? I'm happy to have Docs team members refer such changes to an SME as required, as long as we know just which changes ought to be referred. Brian, Thanks. All three criteria are very useful. As for devel_ack, ideally we don't make documentation changes unless devel_ack is provided. As to whom should provide that ACK, well, that's a good point. I hope this could be raised in an EAP PM meeting. |