#14225 closed (fixed)
Documentation website showing "dev" documentation instead of "1.2"
Reported by: | Owned by: | nobody | |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Documentation | Version: | dev |
Severity: | Keywords: | ||
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Accepted | |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Change History (6)
comment:1 by , 14 years ago
Resolution: | → invalid |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
comment:2 by , 14 years ago
Right, it makes sense. But still it's confusing to read documentation for an unreleased version, I think the 1.2 documentation should reflect the latest release, 1.2.1.
comment:3 by , 14 years ago
Component: | Django Web site → Documentation |
---|---|
Resolution: | invalid |
Status: | closed → reopened |
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
For historical completeness; it was backported because it was required for a test case that *did* need to be backported to 1.2.
Thinking about it some more, we have precedent here; The CSRF template tag is marked "new in Django 1.1.2"; This was equally confusing in the period between the introduction of the feature and the release of 1.1.2 (since the docs refer to a release that isn't available), but it is probably less confusing than not referencing a version at all.
Reopening on that basis.
comment:4 by , 14 years ago
Perhaps the docs for each branch should say "new in 1.1.2" and "new in 1.2.2", depending on the version when they will be released on that branch? Maybe even with a link to a page for that version number, which will either say "released at date X" or "not released yet".
comment:5 by , 14 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | reopened → closed |
That feature was backported to the 1.2.X branch in [13642] (not absolutely sure why, but it was anyway). I've checked some other pages and the 1.2 section is showing the 1.2.X branch as it should, not trunk.