On 2017-07-28 01:10, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2017-07-27 19:05:16 -0400: >> Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-07-27 22:07:33 +0000: >>> On 2017-07-27 15:40:22 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> [...] >>>> Are we over-emphasizing the scale of the discovery problem? >>>> >>>> When I search for how to install a package on Ubuntu (or Red Hat >>>> or Debian for that matter), I find all sorts of references all over >>>> the web (including on the sites for those distros) and I have to >>>> sift through it all to find right command or package name to use >>>> for my version. Usually the easiest way to do that is to put the >>>> version in the search query. >>>> >>>> Are our users incapable of finding the right version of a document >>>> if we clearly mark the version to which each document applies? Every >>>> URL now has a release series name or version tag in the path. The >>>> docs theme inserts the version number into every page as well. Is >>>> that sufficient to help a reader understand what version the info >>>> they're view is for? >>>> >>>> That's not to say we shouldn't do some work to make newer docs easy >>>> to find. If we can modify the sitemap to make them appear earlier >>>> in search results, that's good. The docs theme allows a project to >>>> include links to several older versions to switch between them, >>>> too, so users who land on the "wrong" version can switch. We could >>>> update that to include branches as well as tags, so that someone >>>> can easily move to the series they need without knowing the version >>>> number. >>> [...] >>> >>> The biggest liability is people not realizing there are multiple >>> "versions" of OpenStack finding an old install doc and using it >>> because they don't know it's out of date, then seeking support >>> upstream or just generally contributing to the number of deployments >>> unnecessarily stuck on obsolete software. The current solution of >>> not publishing installation guides for EOL releases seems like a >>> good enough compromise there to me. >> >> That content will now live in the project trees. Perhaps part of marking >> branches in those repos EOL needs to include deleting the install tree >> from the docs? Now that the docs are in a standard location, that could >> be part of an EOL script (although it means 2 phases, since we have to >> land the patch and let the docs rebuild before we remove the branch). >> >> We could also update the openstack-manuals tree to not publish links >> to the install guides (either removing the page or replacing it >> with a placeholder that explains they should be trying to use a >> newer version). >> >> Doug >> > > Today we're publishing series-specific (e.g., newton) and > version-specific (e.g., 10.0.0) docs. I wonder if we should stop > publishing docs when we tag repositories, and just stick to the > series? There's no way to go back and update those version-specific > builds after the fact, so we can't remove the installation guides > and we can't rebuild them easily if there are security issues with > the content.
Sorry, send my other email before reading the whole thread. But reading this, let me add one more line: The publishing when tagging was needed for the client libraries that we only published when tagging. Now we publish *all* docs after each merge. So, I agree, we can remove the building at tag time, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev