I'm thinking about just keeping the _latest, as the download package also includes the entire documentation.
Someone willing to use the old version would be able to look at the specific version.. or even github/docs. On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:44 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think trimming older release doc content to keep the site managable > is reasonable, and there are various approaches that could be used to > trim things. Over at Qpid we tend to trim down to the last 2 years or > so of release docs every now and then (its overdue currently, carrying > just over 3). If taking an approach like that, as example there would > clearly be old Artemis docs that could be removed. Another approach > might be, removing even more docs for version streams not considered > the current for some time, e.g maybe now all the 1.x Artemis docs > could go except the latest 1.5.6 release. > > Looking at the size and content of the release docs themselves is > perhaps also important. Having a peek at whats there currently for the > refreshed ActiveMQ site, I see the 5.x javadocs are using about 400MB > per release, but over half of it looks to be for source html. If so, I > think thats of limited value personally, with IDEs often pulling > source(+javadoc) jars directly and browsers having various web UI > options such as GitHub etc to utilise. Thats >200MB per release I > think we could perhaps remove and substitute with a link to the > release tag. > > Robbie > > On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 22:25, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Do we still need to provide documentation for older releases? > > A big portion of the size now on the website is due to older releases. > > > > > > I believe we should stop doing that, after all if you go to the > > archive on previous releases, the binary will include documentations. -- Clebert Suconic
