Juju Docs now live!

[Henning Eggers]

Hi Nick!

Thanks for fixing the documentation, in general as well as in this particular
instance. Working my way in to juju at the moment, I very much appreciate good
documentation.

On 01.07.2013 16:24, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Nick Veitch <nick.veitch at canonical.com> wrote:
>> I am sure there are other bits that are needed, or have been left behind. If
>> I have missed something, please let me know. That is how we fix things.
> That doesn't sound like a good plan. This wasn't a minor detail
> missing, but a relevant volume of information just going away, and the
> new content being badly formatted.

I have to agree with Gustavo that this error was quite big, at least for me. I
was dumbfounded on Friday when I returned to the docs and could not find
important information. These were the only references to hook names and hook
utilities and vital when writing a charm.

That said ...

>> We most definitely do not want to revert to old docs from which people can't
>> even install and configure juju properly!
> I'm sure the previous documentation wasn't great, after all we indeed
> appreciate your help improving that content. That said, silently
> taking critical information away is much worse.
>

... I am not sure that is true, either. Before, with the old docs, I was
having a hard time trying out juju for the first time and it took me several
attempts to get it working. So, if the new documentation fixes this first-time
experience, I agree that that is more important. As long as glitches like the
current one get fixed as quickly as it did now.

Cheers,
Henning