gemmellr commented on pull request #58: URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/58#issuecomment-909454887
> > > > I speak from a view of having pointed out on a frankly ridiculous number of occasions that people messed up making utterly trivial changes to update the website with a new release. You automated some bits originally to make it less effort, I thought that was great so I then made further improvements and did some others. Its obviously not hard, but from many prior showings people clearly dont want to go to the effort. Anything that makes it even slightly more 'difficult' like this is a bad idea. > > Is there a release step missing from here? [Release Guide](https://activemq.apache.org/release-guide) > No, every single thing I ever commented on was covered in the release guides. People dont make the effort to actually read them. Or update them; have you seen how out of date the page you linked to is? Ive made some edits in reent years, but not much point when they clearly arent being followed. > > Repeating prior comment that the banner and news feed take up way too much space. More so now the latter has about doubled in size. That the release happened and when is all I think it should show. It can then link to areas that have more information if desired. > > I agree, the banner should be re-worked. That is good idea for a follow-on task. > Hardly seems like a follow-on task when this change is making the issue by changing things. Its part of this change. > > I guess from the description we are back to having multiple release entries for the same component, so I'll also repeat that I think that is a bad idea. Nothing so prominent as the front page should be linking to non-current non-mirrored releases. > > I disagree, given my previous use case. However, I think it can be handled in the summary and I'm moving on from this one. > I disagree. I dont think im alone in thinking having stale releases on the fornt page doesnt make sense. Certainly @lucastetreault said it was a fair point and updated things (though not quite as I had suggested), only to change it back after some discussion you had elsewhere. > > > Dedicated release pages for Artemis releases so I have some place to link to from the front page: > > >  > > > > > > I think it is better with a single download page being pointed to. People should always be directed to the latest release, particularly from any highly visible location such as the front page, as they are the only releases that are mirrored. > > We shouldn't direct users to the latest release if they click on link for a specific version. If there is a 5.15.16, we should not send them to 5.16.3 "just because". > Its hardly 'just because'. The link would be to download page, not e.g 5.15.16 page. The front page should never link to old non-mirrored releases. The download page only every carries the current release. Thats what we should be directing people at. It would be pretty obivous that the main download page has the current release, it always has. It would note you can find older releaes on the past releases page. It already does so. > > If people want an old non-current release, there is already a simple page for those (which is linked to right from the top of the download page) or they can hit the archives directly. For the new page, it is easy enough to tell for older entries whether a release is 'current' or not and adapt the stale entry link to go to the past releases page instead of the download page. > > It not about "old". Its about supported multiple version streams. This is only going to become more relevant as the JDK and Jakarta release cycles continue. See Jetty. No, my comment is about "old". 5.16.2 is old. Until you added a 'news page' news item to cover it up, it was in the list along with 5.16.3. Artemis 2.18 and 2.19.0 will both end up in the list very soon, but only one will be current. Those are old releases, this is not a 'multiple version stream' releases. I specifically argued for the latest release per-stream per component. Having e.g 5.16.3 and 5.16.2 on the front page at the same time is bad. > > > (I also dislike that e.g existing 5.x release announcements go to a speciifc page rather than its download page, as that way people are always directed there when coming across old announcements rather than to the latest release. They should really have the same warnings added) > > That sounds like a different change. That you could argue, but as this change is introducing the same problem elsewhere for artemis, which is absolutely part of this change, and the other area is essentially the same change, I'd consider it related. I was also just pre-empting a potential 'but this is what 5.x does' response to say I dont like that either. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
