Post all comments to this page below using a new Subject/headline using the 'Add topic' tab. Thanks Tom Hutchison (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2013 (CST)
Joomla 2.5 Documentation
The Joomla 2.5 documentation is still very sketchy - for a LTS only 3 months in!! I think as a matter of urgency we need to finish some pages e.g. Complete documentation on Standard form field types etc.
- Thanks for your input Wilsonge, I agree completely. It is actually more urgent because the 2.5 is 13 months old(which may be what you meant), released in Jan of 2012. Joomla! 2.5 will be supported for another 2 years, till Dec 31, 2014, so there is a need to complete and improve all 2.5 docs for all user levels. For example, the 2.5 Help Screens are still incomplete and the dev info is fragmented with 1.6, 1.7 and those STS version articles used as references pointing to 2.5. There is a lot of 1.6 and 1.7 relevant to 2.5 and I would be all for moving everything to reflect 2.5. The problem is, some are still using 1.6 and 1.7 and haven't upgraded to 2.5 yet!...and some on 1.5. Perhaps we should 'cut them off' and tell them it is time to move on.
- Sorry indeed I did mean 13 months! I agree with perhaps removing the 1.6/1.7 stuff - there's been major security advances since 1.6/1.7 which leaves those users critically exposed - so removing documentation references might help to push them forwards to 2.5. I've started working on some of the dev stuff but as you say far from complete. The only grey area as far as I'm concerned is where you say since Joomla 1.6 xxx has been introduced. Do we want to change this to 2.5 - or leave it as 1.5 with just removed 1.6/1.7 tags? I've started moving articles that have xxx for Joomla! 1.6 to have a name of xxx for Joomla 2.5 - and moving the reference links already! I hope this isn't an issue - I've made sure to leave the 1.6 JVer tags at the top for now. There are also the odd articles tagged with 1.0 - I think this really is unnecessary - even if they are relevant - we shouldn't even encourage people by letting them think documentation exists for them!
- Short term I think we need. Standard form field types, Help Screens, User Profile Plugin (constantly asked about on StackOverflow). Beginner Documentation (I know as designers we want a good set of documentation - but how is Joomla going to grow as a community without basic documentation?) - as most is Joomla 1.5 specific.
The Cookie Page really needs a complete overhaul - most of the stuff in it backdates to 1.5. The documentation team's projects include a Joomla 1.5 template tutorial. This is pointless (and also hasn't had a update since Jan 2011)!! This needs to be pushed along.
- Again, completely agree. Part of why I started a roadmap, a broad overview of what is needed. There is quite a bit which needs to be done. I'll be moving it into the JDOC namespace as guide in the near future. One of the major needs for docs is 'more developer involvement' so I am glad to see you contributing to the wiki! Thank you!
- The docs wiki needs better WikiProject pages to define tasks, promote involvement and allow for feedback. I think there are many who want to help, but have no idea where to start so this is one thing which needs to be addressed first.
- Agreed! The Cookie Jar is a great idea - and I guess the sooner this stuff is updated the better!
Perhaps try and organize another Joomla Documentation Pizza Day??
- I'm all for it, actually multiple ones over a period of the next few months once specific tasks are setup.
--Wilsonge (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2013 (CST)
- Thanks for your input and I am very interested in more thoughts or suggestions you may have! --Tom Hutchison (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2013 (CST)
- RE: Joomla 1.5 wiki. I think 1.5 is a slightly different cup of tea - because of the hassle of people upgrading from 1.5 to 2.5 I think we're going to find that people stick with 1.5 for a while. Could we perhaps create an archive wiki for 1.5 tutorials? But then if you do that - do we need to separate out the 3.0 and 2.5 tutorials? Questions to be answered and decided upon I guess in your roadmap.
--Wilsonge (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2013 (CST)