I’m not clear if I was just a dummy all this time, or if I just missed this
addition as part of this redesign?
If it’s new, thumbs up!
If it’s old, sorry for being ignorant.
Anyway, I think my complaint can be reduced down into:
I didn’t see the version number in any obvious/intuitive place.
I don’t think “Chef: current” is very clear.
I’d rather see it listed with the current version, as is the convention for
Ruby (includes version in URI) and Python (URI and that version dropdown
That also nicely means that if I go to http://ruby-doc.org/core/Class.html
, I get bounced to http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.3/Class.html , and I know
that I can find the 2.2.1 version of that doc at
I think that’s a desirable structure, though not necessarily the only one.
That also plays into an issue in which after arriving at
https://docs.chef.io/knife_bootstrap.html , it isn’t at all clear how to
get to https://docs.chef.io/release/11-18/knife_bootstrap.html
Toggling the version of “Chef Client” in the dropdown does not have the
desired effect, since it takes you back to the Chef Client landing page.
I think that’s fine when you’re going to a version where a feature or
command doesn’t exist or has changed names, but
knife bootstrap is still
Regardless, version numbers, whoo! Thanks!
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:46 PM Christopher Webber firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
So we are still working out the kinks, but… you can at least go look at
this for specific versions of chef…
12.1 (I will note that that anchor doesn’t work, because that command isn’t
I know it isn’t super clear when it was added, but at least you can choose
the version of the docs that make sense for what you are running.
Thanks for the feedback!
On Sep 25, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Stephen Rosen email@example.com wrote:
First of all, I like the redesign a lot.
The new navbar on the left seems particularly nice.
However, this is an opportunity to voice a gripe I’ve had for a long time
about the docs, and which I think is both fixable in the short term and
much more important than a mobile-friendly redesign.
Can we please, please, pretty please, get version numbers noted on pages?
This is especially important for
It’s frustrating to look at a page on the doc site and say “Hmm. Was this
page updated after Chef 12 was released?”
I’m not insisting that every version of every command be documented on the
site – although, frankly, I think that is a highly automatable process –
but just that when I look at the info for
( https://docs.chef.io/ctl_chef_server.html#org-user-remove ) I can know
which version of Chef that documentation refers to.
I pick that example because the
knife edit command given there is, to
the best of my knowledge, wrong for Chef 12.
If I can’t have the right command for the current version, at least tell
me that the doc dates from an earlier version of Chef.
All that said, I stand by my initial statement that the redesign is good
and gives me the warm fuzzies.
Thanks very much,
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM Christopher Hahn <
We appreciate the effort!
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Alex Neihaus firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi. This is a very nice update and much appreciated.
I’m a newbie – and I find it frustrating for doc on the relevant chef.io
page to refer to GitHub which refers back to chef.io. I also wish all
options were document, with relevant examples on a page somehere and not
just in the help text of the command itself. IMO, the complete product doc
should be on your site. Knife ec2 (which I am currently learning) is one
From: Christopher Webber [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 07:21
Subject: [chef] Revamped Docs Site
For those of you that haven’t been to https://docs.chef.io since about
21:00 UTC yesterday (2015-09-24), we have launch a major redesign of the
Docs site. The content hasn’t changed significantly but, along with a fresh
new design, it is now browsable on mobile and tablet. Hopefully y’all feel
like it is as much of an upgrade as we do. Please let me know if you hit
any issue. Additionally you can provide feedback by going to