Splits between major versions makes sence to me. Thus a "new" MoodleDoc for 1.x and 2.x and 3.x is my recommendation right now. Getting granular with 2.0, 2.1 2.2 and ect is nice but it is a lot of work when it changes in 2.0 and 2.1 (see blank pages comment below).
Right now MoodleDocs 2.0 has lots of blank pages, in part because of the reorganization. Blank and short pages was pretty typical back in, , 2006 (8,000+ edits for me ago) and it took a lot of time.
The transclusion works in the documentation but it requires some level of expertise and paying attention. Maybe if we could tag it so that when it appears, it has visiual indicator in the non-edit mode that it comes from somewhere else. Ditto, the orginal version, we need a tag in the edit mode to indicate it is used elsewhere. The code should do that but....
I do see a inconsistancy in the big picture theory in having only a 2.1 demo.moodle, while we are susposed to be writing for 2.0 and using demo.moodle as our standard for screen shots and documentation. This is a minor point.
Historically, I do remember 2006 and the development of MoodleDocs took a while to get the basics. Then we got into the 'don't tell me just the settings, but how to make the settings work for me' phase after MoodleDocs matured (2009?). Version 2.x is sort of like jumping from 1.4 to 1.8. It will take less time but still a significant amount of time to get it to the point where we can have the "give me some examples" discussions . My 2 cents worth.
FYI: I am not going to backtrack with my documentation if we do a copy of 2.0 and call it 2.1 MoodleDocs. I am using 2.1, so I am going to stick with that version until we update our Moodles, then I will look at documentation to see if it meets my needs. I might use transclusion if I made corrections in 2.1 that work in 2.4 and the 2.3 MoodleDocs did not receive my TLC
It is what is and I am going to do what I am going to do in MoodleDocs. That is the tradition and the rules. It is fairly obvious that MoodleDocs 2.x needs to mature (needs lots of hours of editing as it is on 2 Aug 2011) before a split should be considered.
Help docs are a different kettle of fish. There a split between versions does make sence, as it does in DEV.
Staying positive! Chris