I meant. There is no disk space *issue* but you probably figure out what I meant.
It’s just that takes a while for a checkout. And I believe the older versions make a big contribution to that and that tends to aggravate over time. On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:19 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > There is no disk space. But when you checkout the git repo checkout w > branch takes a while. And I think that will only get worse overtime. > > I don’t think it’s needed to keep all alive versions on the doc > considering you can have it as part of the download. > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:37 PM Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is the site running into disk space limitations? I considered paring the >> documentation down during the migration, but I didn't have any real >> problems dealing with it. Also, I figured that since disk space is and >> bandwidth are so cheap it really wasn't an issue. I think it's more >> convenient to have the docs on the website, but like you said the docs are >> in the distribution as well so it's not terribly hard to get them >> regardless. I'm +0 on this. >> >> >> Justin >> >> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:19 PM Clebert Suconic < >> [email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > 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 >> > >> > -- > Clebert Suconic > -- Clebert Suconic
