I'm in favor of #3, too. Ideally we'd have proper pages for both releases, including docs, and downloads.
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I'd advocate #3, at least until we are no longer regularly making new 2.x > releases. > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Alexandra Rodoni <arod...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > I would like to get your feedback on how to manage Impala doc site when > we > > have 2 parallel release streams, 2.x and 3.x. > > > > Currently, https://impala.apache.org/impala-docs.html has the HTML > version > > of the latest version doc set. For older versions, only the PDF versions > > are available. > > > > Options are: > > > > 1. Have the latest HTML version doc available. This can look confusing, > for > > example, when 2.13 shows as the latest, but 3.0 is listed in the Older > > Release section. > > > > 2. Have the highest release number as the latest and offer the HTML for > > that version. So, 3.0 will still be the latest release when 2.13 comes > out. > > And 2.13 docs will be only available in PDF when released. > > > > 3. Revamp the doc page and the workflow so that we can have both 2.x and > > 3.x docs in HTML. > > > > Let me know what you think is the best option. > > > > Thanks. > > alex rodoni > > >
