Add a note to the asciidoc / html version of the FMI Standard, the released PDF version is the valid version about fmi-standard.org

[t-sommer]

@chrbertsch, can you please make a PR once the Trac tickets are migrated?

[chrbertsch]

OK.
@beutlich : Are you already working on the migration of tickets or when is this planned? Thanks!

[beutlich]

There are only 6 Trac tickets to migrate here. We probably will not synchronize the ticket numbers then.

https://trac.fmi-standard.org/query?status=assigned&status=closed&status=new&status=reopened&component=website&order=priority

Synchronized ticket numbers are more relevant for the specification repo https://github.com/modelica/fmi-standard, though.

[t-sommer]

@chrbertsch, do you want to add the note to the homepage (this repo) or the fmi-standard itself?

[chrbertsch]

I agree.

[chrbertsch]

Both. It should be clear, that until we have a released version of the asciidoc-created standard (FMI 2.0.1 or 3.0, in html or pdf form), the PDF generated from Word is the valid one in case of errors during the transformation to asciidoc.

[t-sommer]

Maybe we should not tag / publish the 2.0 HTML version and start with 2.0.1 to avoid confusion in the first place.

[t-sommer]

We can still regularly publish the development version as 2.0.1-snapshot on the website to give people the chance to review it w/o installing any tools.

[andreas-junghanns]

Sure, 2.0 is not really important. Important is how we move forward.

[t-sommer]

Resolved with modelica/fmi-standard@15e4780

[chrbertsch]

On https://fmi-standard.org/downloads/ there is still a link to https://fmi-standard.org/docs/2.0.1-develop/. It is not mentioned, that this is an unreleased version.
It is not clear to me from which sources this is created. (From the branch support/v2.0.1?)
We should not link to this unreleased version from https://fmi-standard.org/downloads/ , but perhaps from https://fmi-standard.org/develop