I am ok with 1 and 2, but not 3. Doing that means older releases web sites are no longer available. Just because the latest includes release notes for all versions doesn’t mean it fully documents what was in prior releases. However, I am not surprised you are suggesting this as I posted in an earlier email that CI of the web site would be difficult due to this.
Ralph > On Oct 22, 2023, at 2:03 PM, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Volkan, > >> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 22:20, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: >> 3. *Don't create a new folder for every release, but override the `2.x` >> folder.* >> - This is okay, since we keep backward compatibility in minor+patch >> releases and explicitly provide version for features that are added >> later >> on (e.g., "starting from 2.17.0 Log4j provides X...") >> - We can set up CI jobs to periodically populate `1.x`, `2.x`, `3.x`, >> `4.x`, etc. websites and avoid the need to generate the website once and >> for all. >> - We will stop polluting the folder structure. > > +1 on keeping just `1.x`, `2.x`, etc. > > We just need to keep in mind that not all public methods have a > correct `@since` Javadoc tag. We would need to fix that. > > Piotr
