David Crossley wrote: > Dave Brondsema wrote: > > > > /docs/dev/ nested below /docs/ seems weird. I think it would be better > > to host the current stable release at a url like: /docs/0.7/. This > > would also permit us to keep documentation for all old releases > > (although we would probably want warnings on them if they are too old). > > > > 0.6 docs had to be kept at /docs/ because they didn't have a split > > docs/site structure so I kept it as-is. I had been thinking we'd move > > to something like /docs/0.7/ for future releases, but I can't find any > > discussion about this in particular. > > We probably jumped to the conclusion that we only would have > the current release and the current dev version. > > I agree with this new approach. So would it be like this ... > > Assuming that we don't want to version the top-level docs.
Is that a legitimate assumption? It would change our layout if we do. I don't know the answer yet either. > f.a.o/ ... the top-level docs, from trunk/site-author > f.a.o/docs/ ... is .htaccess to redirect to current release docs. > f.a.o/docs/0.6/ ... from the forrest_06_branch (*) > f.a.o/docs/0.7/ ... from the forrest_07_branch, when it is released > f.a.o/docs/0.8/ ... the next development, from future trunk/docs-author/ > > Actually we should be able to establish this prior to the 0.7 release. > > [*] the 0.6 stuff will have some inconsistencies, which we can > fix in its branch, such as faq.html was one level up. > > The missing piece is that we need to clearly denote the version number > on all docs. We should be able to do something rough-and-ready > to get us by. That is fixed now. We can put a panel on the page and text after the html tile. --David
