I'd prefer to keep the latest versions of docs for each minor release. I'd squash all the 1.5.x into just 1.5, but keep 1.0, 1.1 etc... The 1.5 docs may not be applicable to 1.4 due to the introduction of new features. 1.0 for example, is very different from 1.5, but we I feel we should still provide docs for those users who have not been able to upgrade.
On a related note, (I can start a separate DISCUSS thread on this if people prefer). I'd like to also suggest that we stop distributing the documentation as part of the release distribution and instead just provide links to the latest versions. Having the docs released as part of the binary and source distribution, means that we need to do a full Artemis release just to get doc changes out. Instead I'd like to see docs either on their own release cycle or just built periodically, housed somewhere and linked to from the distribution. Thoughts? Regards Martyn On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > Let's make the links 2.x and 1.x. Immutable links makes it easier on > google? > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:47 PM Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 03/13/2017 04:44 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > > Right now we have 10. And going up. > > > > > > 1.0, 1.1, .... 1.5.0 1.5.1....1.5.4. 2.0 > > > > I think John is saying the same thing I said earlier, only keep 1.5.4 > > and 2.0.0 as those are the latest supported releases, when 1.5.5 ships > > then drop 1.5.4 ... > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:37 PM Timothy Bish <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> On 03/13/2017 04:07 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > >>> Sure. Latest 1.x and latest 2.x. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Just that it seems too much now. > > >> Isn't that just two instances? That doesn't seem like to much. > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:42 PM Jiri Danek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Clebert Suconic < > > >>>> [email protected]> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I was wondering if we could / should update the docs page to only > > >>>>> include the latest version (that is 2.0.0)... The docs are still > > >>>>> maintained at the git, so you can always refer to the doc of the > > >>>>> version you're using when you download.. or you can use links from > > >>>>> github. > > >>>>> > > >>>> It seems strange to maintain the 1.x release stream and not have > > >>>> documentation for it on the site. There should be at least the > latest > > >> 1,x > > >>>> and the latest 2.0 version. > > >>>> > > >>>> The projects whose documentation I often browse online all have > > previous > > >>>> doc versions on the site, be it https://www.postgresql.org/docs/, > > >> Python > > >>>> or > > >>>> readthedocs.io hosted sites like http://docs.pachyderm.io/en/ > stable/ > > >> (see > > >>>> the version picker at the bottom left). > > >>>> > > >>>> readthedocs.io sites also have a noticebar that alerts users that > > they > > >> are > > >>>> browsing documentation for older release; I once raised this as > > feature > > >>>> request https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-615 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> That would also make it easier for web robots (google, etc) to > index > > >> it. > > >>>> <link href="http://www.example.com/canonical-version-of-page/"; > > >>>> rel="canonical" /> > > >>>> > > >>>> in the HTML head section should take care of that. This is what > > >>>> readthedocs.io does. > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Jiří Daněk > > >>>> Messaging QA > > >>>> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Tim Bish > > >> twitter: @tabish121 > > >> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > > >> > > >> -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > -- > > Tim Bish > > twitter: @tabish121 > > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
