RE: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
> -Original Message- > From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 6:06 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving > pages? (was: Old build Documentation) > I am aware. It is not about a generic archive rampage. I have more in > mind to discuss a process first, then start page by page. OK > And I have put 3 pages on the line for start. I just want to > hint that > there are more, we might want to archive. But we should discuss those > pages each, +1 I think we need a list/table of all pages then so we can vote on individual pages. We could set up a table here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Website+Migrations I will create a draft in the next few days. Is that okay? > be voted, because it can't be that someone decides randomly. > > Well this Idea did not reach consent. We need another Idea. I am fine > with reaching consent page by page. > > And as you see I already did this with the 3 pages I > mentioned earlier. I have to read up first, at the moment I have not read what you are talking about here. > >> There is no rush, > > yes, that is how it is. Care is far more important than speed > > > >> But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time > with loads of > >> old baggage around. > > -1 > > It is not your past, but that of other people who have long > worked here with diligence where others OO not yet even knew! > > I have never said that. If it were mine, I would not have started a > discussion about it. I would have acted. Instead I start a > discussion to > achieve consent. > > How we should deal with our heritage? And just in case any > one assumes I > have made my mind up: No I have not. And your opinion is of > course also > > welcome. But you sound very reserved. I would like to see if > you think > about it how we could process this correctly so it works for all. Not > taking in account the workload or the time it needs. > > Just think on the right things, that we need to do. Well, the right thing to do (and I said this a long time ago) would be to archive the old pages completely. (You could also make the old pages static). The new web pages we could, in this case, create completely free, so both partly use old content and update or create completely new content. What is the decisive advantage: --- There would be no need for a discussion about what to archive, because we archive everything and no one would have to worry about things disappearing that they consider important. > However there are more ways to archive this, > then dumping a state X into an Archive. We do not need to > preserve every > commit online. > > Our code repository does also not contain the complete commit history. my personal opinion is very simple: for me it would be enough to archive a static copy of the current state of the web pages, a history is not needed (in my opinion). May I ask: has anyone specifically asked for more? Has asked for a history? If not, let's put it to the vote by asking: Does an archive of old web pages need a history or is the last actual state sufficient? (Note: at the places where pages are empty for technical reasons, the last actual state is the filled page, i.e. practically: if someone takes the trouble to reconstruct the content, he may do so). > I heard so many stories by now, and none is documented anywhere. I do > not think keeping the pages as is is telling anyone the > history on this > project. and I hear so much self-praise from the PMC ... 'and a lot is not documented', kept secret from the community, not allowed to be discussed publicly > This is by the way I suggested "outsiders" that focus on preserving > history. Maybe I am a bit inspired by my own comparison that > we are not > a museum, What I see is that today there are people in the PMC who have not done nearly as much for OpenOffice as others who are not in the PMC. What I see is that there is a tendency among some to value AOO more than OOo and to think that work for OOo should not be valued by us. This is not fair, and it does not motivate anyone, because work done is not rewarded fairly, but its publicly visible appreciation is dependent on the opinion of privileged individuals. greetings, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
On 21.12.20 15:11, Jörg Schmidt wrote: I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion: archive.openoffice.org) site, and move pages there, that have only historic value. Can you also tell which ones they are? On what factual basis? I, personally, had noted e.g. in the confluence-Wiki pages which are important for our daily work AND remain. Have you read that? I am aware. It is not about a generic archive rampage. I have more in mind to discuss a process first, then start page by page. And I have put 3 pages on the line for start. I just want to hint that there are more, we might want to archive. But we should discuss those pages each, since Information should have no value for OpenOffice 4.1.0. I suggest that we create an archive page (suggestion: archive.openoffice.org) Site, and move pages there that have only historical value. I had already suggested, and continue to suggest, we move all old pages to an archive. If only certain pages should be moved there, then this must be voted, because it can't be that someone decides randomly. Well this Idea did not reach consent. We need another Idea. I am fine with reaching consent page by page. And as you see I already did this with the 3 pages I mentioned earlier. There is no rush, yes, that is how it is. Care is far more important than speed But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of old baggage around. -1 It is not your past, but that of other people who have long worked here with diligence where others OO not yet even knew! I have never said that. If it were mine, I would not have started a discussion about it. I would have acted. Instead I start a discussion to achieve consent. How we should deal with our heritage? And just in case any one assumes I have made my mind up: No I have not. And your opinion is of course also welcome. But you sound very reserved. I would like to see if you think about it how we could process this correctly so it works for all. Not taking in account the workload or the time it needs. Just think on the right things, that we need to do. my opinion is quite clear: the memory of the performance of former project members must not be erased, even if they are not PMC members. The former work at OOo was worth at least as much as the current work at AOO. This is a valid thought. However there are more ways to archive this, then dumping a state X into an Archive. We do not need to preserve every commit online. Our code repository does also not contain the complete commit history. I heard so many stories by now, and none is documented anywhere. I do not think keeping the pages as is is telling anyone the history on this project. This is by the way I suggested "outsiders" that focus on preserving history. Maybe I am a bit inspired by my own comparison that we are not a museum, but maybe one would be good for the complete community. I do not know. It is just a wired Idea. But I am fine with going to archive stuff somehow to get a better Idea. -- This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
> -Original Message- > From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de] > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 3:12 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: RE: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving > pages? (was: Old build Documentation) > > > -Original Message- > > From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org] > > Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 12:32 AM > > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > > Subject: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving > > pages? (was: Old build Documentation) > > > > I change subject since I venture to more generic topic. > > > > > > On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote: > > > The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days > > of OpenOffice.org > > > (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as > > outdated and be > > > sure there is a link to any replacement document. > > > > For me this rule does not add up. Marking pages out dated > is not the > > solution. We are not a museum. > > > > These pages are so dire old, no body knows if that what the > pages are > > saying are any accurate, or what. > > > > We should create an Archive section, and then create there a > > static html > > site that preserves the state in order to honor history. > > > > We can add some information maybe like contributors and > > stuff. If this > > sentiment is important. But we should move pages that are > > confusing and > > irrelevant to our work somewhere they are not in the way. > > > > I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion: > > archive.openoffice.org) > > site, and move pages there, that have only historic value. > > Can you also tell which ones they are? On what factual basis? > > I, personally, had noted e.g. in the confluence-Wiki pages > which are important for our daily work AND remain. Have you read that? It took me a while to find the information, but I mean the sites listed here under "de": https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Website+Migrations Notice: Unfortunately I did not manage to write to all reference customers in time for OO's anniversary, but I have been reviewing and updating all the information on the reference customer page (http://www.openoffice.org/de/marketing/referenzkunden.html) for some time now. At the moment my working tool is a Calc-DAtei (ods), so nothing new is visible on the WEbseite yet. Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
> -Original Message- > From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org] > Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 12:32 AM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving > pages? (was: Old build Documentation) > > I change subject since I venture to more generic topic. > > > On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote: > > The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days > of OpenOffice.org > > (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as > outdated and be > > sure there is a link to any replacement document. > > For me this rule does not add up. Marking pages out dated is not the > solution. We are not a museum. > > These pages are so dire old, no body knows if that what the pages are > saying are any accurate, or what. > > We should create an Archive section, and then create there a > static html > site that preserves the state in order to honor history. > > We can add some information maybe like contributors and > stuff. If this > sentiment is important. But we should move pages that are > confusing and > irrelevant to our work somewhere they are not in the way. > > I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion: > archive.openoffice.org) > site, and move pages there, that have only historic value. Can you also tell which ones they are? On what factual basis? I, personally, had noted e.g. in the confluence-Wiki pages which are important for our daily work AND remain. Have you read that? > I suggest that we create an archive page (suggestion: archive.openoffice.org) > Site, and move pages there that have only historical value. I had already suggested, and continue to suggest, we move all old pages to an archive. If only certain pages should be moved there, then this must be voted, because it can't be that someone decides randomly. > There is no rush, yes, that is how it is. Care is far more important than speed > But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of > old baggage around. -1 It is not your past, but that of other people who have long worked here with diligence where others OO not yet even knew! my opinion is quite clear: the memory of the performance of former project members must not be erased, even if they are not PMC members. The former work at OOo was worth at least as much as the current work at AOO. greetings, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
On 20.12.20 18:58, Keith N. McKenna wrote: Greetings Peter, comments are inline. On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:32:15 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote: I change subject since I venture to more generic topic. On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote: The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of OpenOffice.org (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and be sure there is a link to any replacement document. All I am attempting to do is to explain what longstanding policy has been for the wiki. If the community wants to change that fine I do believe it needs a [Discusstion] thread of it's own rather than just a change of topic in a related thread. Not meant as any Critics towards you. I believe that we should reduce the pages that we carry around. And less pages means more control over documentation. On the Wiki a lot of people wrote plans, Ideas or Work coordinations. For example Damjan Documented his gmake port work somewhere, which has some state. (I would not Archive it yet, but it's worth is counted.) Dave wrote: I don’t think the effort to move obsolete Wiki pages to static html is worth it. It’s better to label and point. Perhaps it can be done with a macro. I think there are a substantial amount of pages that we can drop. However I have no numbers. Maybe we add a Category Archive in order to get an Overview. I think there is an Archive Template. At least I have seen something on the older pages, that were outdated. I think though we can add metadata and a template to quickly mark pages as obsolete. Redirection or inserted link using additional metadata is possible. This is a few hours work to setup. I would volunteer to enable it. I think though we can add metadata and a template to quickly mark pages as obsolete. Redirection or inserted link using additional metadata is possible. This is a few hours work to setup. I would volunteer to enable it. +1, to this plan. I think sounds like good first steps, and Ideas. Thanks for Keith and Dave for your thoughts. -- This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 11:03:17 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote: > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 20, 2020, at 9:58 AM, Keith N. McKenna >> wrote: >> >> Greetings Peter, comments are inline. >>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:32:15 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> I change subject since I venture to more generic topic. >>> >>> On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote: The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of OpenOffice.org (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and be sure there is a link to any replacement document. >>> >> All I am attempting to do is to explain what longstanding policy has >> been for the wiki. If the community wants to change that fine I do >> believe it needs a [Discusstion] thread of it's own rather than just a >> change of topic in a related thread. >> >>> I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion: >>> archive.openoffice.org) site, and move pages there, that have only >>> historic value. >> >> Again should be in a [Discussion} thread devoted to a policy change. > > I don’t think the effort to move obsolete Wiki pages to static html is > worth it. It’s better to label and point. Perhaps it can be done with a > macro. > Dave I agree with you. There is a way to redirect outdated pages to the newer documents. I will look into the mediawiki documents for the way to do it. regards Keith > For obsolete html in www.OpenOffice.org we could mark and move to > Www.OpenOffice.org/archive/ rather than maintain yet another repository > and website. > > I think though we can add metadata and a template to quickly mark pages > as obsolete. Redirection or inserted link using additional metadata is > possible. This is a few hours work to setup. I would volunteer to enable > it. > > Regards, > Dave > > >> >>> There is no rush, but cleaning up would help us to refresh our minds. >>> But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of >>> old baggage around. And we have difficulties to find the right >>> information. >> >> That is where we definitely agree. The mwiki has suffered from neglect >> for far to long and needs an overhaul. Whether that takes place here or >> in a thread of it's own is up to the community. >> >> Regards Keith >> >> >>> just my 2 cents. >>> >>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For >> additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 20, 2020, at 9:58 AM, Keith N. McKenna > wrote: > > Greetings Peter, comments are inline. >> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:32:15 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote: >> >> I change subject since I venture to more generic topic. >> >> >>> On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote: >>> The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of >>> OpenOffice.org >>> (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and >>> be sure there is a link to any replacement document. >> > All I am attempting to do is to explain what longstanding policy has been > for the wiki. If the community wants to change that fine I do believe it > needs a [Discusstion] thread of it's own rather than just a change of > topic in a related thread. > >> For me this rule does not add up. Marking pages out dated is not the >> solution. We are not a museum. > >> These pages are so dire old, no body knows if that what the pages are >> saying are any accurate, or what. > > That is why they were to be marked as outdated ank links to the newer > documents provided. There is also a way to create internal redirects to > the newer pages such that if the old document is clicked it automatically > opens the newer document. > >> We should create an Archive section, and then create there a static html >> site that preserves the state in order to honor history. > > That is another way to handle it that deserves to be in a [Discussion] > thread for a policy change. > >> We can add some information maybe like contributors and stuff. If this >> sentiment is important. But we should move pages that are confusing and >> irrelevant to our work somewhere they are not in the way. >> >> I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion: archive.openoffice.org) >> site, and move pages there, that have only historic value. > > Again should be in a [Discussion} thread devoted to a policy change. I don’t think the effort to move obsolete Wiki pages to static html is worth it. It’s better to label and point. Perhaps it can be done with a macro. For obsolete html in www.OpenOffice.org we could mark and move to Www.OpenOffice.org/archive/ rather than maintain yet another repository and website. I think though we can add metadata and a template to quickly mark pages as obsolete. Redirection or inserted link using additional metadata is possible. This is a few hours work to setup. I would volunteer to enable it. Regards, Dave > >> >> There is no rush, but cleaning up would help us to refresh our minds. >> But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of >> old baggage around. And we have difficulties to find the right >> information. > > That is where we definitely agree. The mwiki has suffered from neglect for > far to long and needs an overhaul. Whether that takes place here or in a > thread of it's own is up to the community. > > Regards > Keith > >> >> just my 2 cents. >> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
Greetings Peter, comments are inline. On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:32:15 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote: > I change subject since I venture to more generic topic. > > > On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote: >> The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of >> OpenOffice.org >> (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and >> be sure there is a link to any replacement document. > All I am attempting to do is to explain what longstanding policy has been for the wiki. If the community wants to change that fine I do believe it needs a [Discusstion] thread of it's own rather than just a change of topic in a related thread. > For me this rule does not add up. Marking pages out dated is not the > solution. We are not a museum. > These pages are so dire old, no body knows if that what the pages are > saying are any accurate, or what. That is why they were to be marked as outdated ank links to the newer documents provided. There is also a way to create internal redirects to the newer pages such that if the old document is clicked it automatically opens the newer document. > We should create an Archive section, and then create there a static html > site that preserves the state in order to honor history. That is another way to handle it that deserves to be in a [Discussion] thread for a policy change. > We can add some information maybe like contributors and stuff. If this > sentiment is important. But we should move pages that are confusing and > irrelevant to our work somewhere they are not in the way. > > I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion: archive.openoffice.org) > site, and move pages there, that have only historic value. Again should be in a [Discussion} thread devoted to a policy change. > > There is no rush, but cleaning up would help us to refresh our minds. > But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of > old baggage around. And we have difficulties to find the right > information. That is where we definitely agree. The mwiki has suffered from neglect for far to long and needs an overhaul. Whether that takes place here or in a thread of it's own is up to the community. Regards Keith > > just my 2 cents. > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
I change subject since I venture to more generic topic. On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote: The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of OpenOffice.org (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and be sure there is a link to any replacement document. For me this rule does not add up. Marking pages out dated is not the solution. We are not a museum. These pages are so dire old, no body knows if that what the pages are saying are any accurate, or what. We should create an Archive section, and then create there a static html site that preserves the state in order to honor history. We can add some information maybe like contributors and stuff. If this sentiment is important. But we should move pages that are confusing and irrelevant to our work somewhere they are not in the way. I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion: archive.openoffice.org) site, and move pages there, that have only historic value. There is no rush, but cleaning up would help us to refresh our minds. But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of old baggage around. And we have difficulties to find the right information. just my 2 cents. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten -- This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Old build Documentation
On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 13:11:10 -0500, Carl Marcum wrote: Comments inline > Hi Peter, > > On 12/19/20 12:09 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: >> >> On 19.12.20 14:38, Carl Marcum wrote: >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>> On 12/19/20 8:13 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote: Hello Peter, On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 01:30:21AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote: > Hello all, > > do we still need the documentation description for: > > https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html > > http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html > > https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide I read quickly through them and vote for: no, please let us get rid of them. > I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search > results on duck duck go. > > And then you click through the history. > > My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get rid of those pages as quickly as possible. Or, better, have them redirect straight to https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO so that who clicks on the outdated links is redirected to the more up to date documentation. Best regards, >>> I hate running into old cruft on the wiki also. However.. >>> >>> I think it comes down to keeping thinks for historical purposes. >> If we want to do that we should create an Archive. And we should then >> make shure the stuff can be build by offering all needed dependency. >>> The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of OpenOffice.org (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and be sure there is a link to any replacement document. >>> We keep old sources around so my thinking is that we should somehow >>> maintain a place for people to find build instructions. >> We have the instruction in our Git Repository. >>> >>> I do think it would help if they were more specific in exactly what >>> versions they were appropriate for and have links to current pages. >>> >>> These instructions don't always have to be in the form of a wiki page >>> since they are historical in nature. PDF maybe? >>> >>> Kind of like when I recently went looking for information on the mwiki >>> IDL extension and found the page was deleted 8 years ago. >> There is a difference between old information that we still need and >> out dated Information. >> Maybe we could do something with Archive.org? Maybe we find people that >> would look into the stuff and create a plan how to archive this stuff. > I agree there is a LOT of wiki pages and other things that are either > not relevant anymore or just outdated. > I'm not sure about depending on a third party as an archive. > > I think a banner paragraph about being outdated with a link to the > current page is one way to handle it. I have already marked it with the outdated template and there is alreay a link to the replacement doc. Regards Keith > A redirect would be another but hard to view it if it's actually needed > by someone. > Maybe a combination of moving the contents to an archive area, adding > the redirect and adding a link to the archive somewhere on the new page? > > I don't think something like our database backed mwiki is the best going > forward either if we need to migrate it or upgrade it every few years. > Plus the dev guide breaking issue we just resolved. > I'm much more in favor of a file based solution. But a migration would > be a huge effort also unless some automation is used. > > Maybe this should be a more overall project discussion on how we want to > handle these cases. > > Best regards, > Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Old build Documentation
Hi Peter, On 12/19/20 12:09 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: On 19.12.20 14:38, Carl Marcum wrote: Hi Peter, On 12/19/20 8:13 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote: Hello Peter, On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 01:30:21AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote: Hello all, do we still need the documentation description for: https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide I read quickly through them and vote for: no, please let us get rid of them. I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search results on duck duck go. And then you click through the history. My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get rid of those pages as quickly as possible. Or, better, have them redirect straight to https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO so that who clicks on the outdated links is redirected to the more up to date documentation. Best regards, I hate running into old cruft on the wiki also. However.. I think it comes down to keeping thinks for historical purposes. If we want to do that we should create an Archive. And we should then make shure the stuff can be build by offering all needed dependency. We keep old sources around so my thinking is that we should somehow maintain a place for people to find build instructions. We have the instruction in our Git Repository. I do think it would help if they were more specific in exactly what versions they were appropriate for and have links to current pages. These instructions don't always have to be in the form of a wiki page since they are historical in nature. PDF maybe? Kind of like when I recently went looking for information on the mwiki IDL extension and found the page was deleted 8 years ago. There is a difference between old information that we still need and out dated Information. Maybe we could do something with Archive.org? Maybe we find people that would look into the stuff and create a plan how to archive this stuff. I agree there is a LOT of wiki pages and other things that are either not relevant anymore or just outdated. I'm not sure about depending on a third party as an archive. I think a banner paragraph about being outdated with a link to the current page is one way to handle it. A redirect would be another but hard to view it if it's actually needed by someone. Maybe a combination of moving the contents to an archive area, adding the redirect and adding a link to the archive somewhere on the new page? I don't think something like our database backed mwiki is the best going forward either if we need to migrate it or upgrade it every few years. Plus the dev guide breaking issue we just resolved. I'm much more in favor of a file based solution. But a migration would be a huge effort also unless some automation is used. Maybe this should be a more overall project discussion on how we want to handle these cases. Best regards, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Old build Documentation
On 19.12.20 14:38, Carl Marcum wrote: Hi Peter, On 12/19/20 8:13 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote: Hello Peter, On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 01:30:21AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote: Hello all, do we still need the documentation description for: https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide I read quickly through them and vote for: no, please let us get rid of them. I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search results on duck duck go. And then you click through the history. My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get rid of those pages as quickly as possible. Or, better, have them redirect straight to https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO so that who clicks on the outdated links is redirected to the more up to date documentation. Best regards, I hate running into old cruft on the wiki also. However.. I think it comes down to keeping thinks for historical purposes. If we want to do that we should create an Archive. And we should then make shure the stuff can be build by offering all needed dependency. We keep old sources around so my thinking is that we should somehow maintain a place for people to find build instructions. We have the instruction in our Git Repository. I do think it would help if they were more specific in exactly what versions they were appropriate for and have links to current pages. These instructions don't always have to be in the form of a wiki page since they are historical in nature. PDF maybe? Kind of like when I recently went looking for information on the mwiki IDL extension and found the page was deleted 8 years ago. There is a difference between old information that we still need and out dated Information. Maybe we could do something with Archive.org? Maybe we find people that would look into the stuff and create a plan how to archive this stuff. -- This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Old build Documentation
Hi Peter, On 12/19/20 8:13 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote: Hello Peter, On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 01:30:21AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote: Hello all, do we still need the documentation description for: https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide I read quickly through them and vote for: no, please let us get rid of them. I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search results on duck duck go. And then you click through the history. My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get rid of those pages as quickly as possible. Or, better, have them redirect straight to https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO so that who clicks on the outdated links is redirected to the more up to date documentation. Best regards, I hate running into old cruft on the wiki also. However.. I think it comes down to keeping thinks for historical purposes. We keep old sources around so my thinking is that we should somehow maintain a place for people to find build instructions. I do think it would help if they were more specific in exactly what versions they were appropriate for and have links to current pages. These instructions don't always have to be in the form of a wiki page since they are historical in nature. PDF maybe? Kind of like when I recently went looking for information on the mwiki IDL extension and found the page was deleted 8 years ago. Best regards, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Old build Documentation
Hello All, On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 02:13:46PM +0100, Arrigo Marchiori wrote: [...] > This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get rid > of those pages as quickly as possible. I apologize, I meant "unfortunate". -- rigo http://rigo.altervista.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Old build Documentation
Hello Peter, On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 01:30:21AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote: > Hello all, > > do we still need the documentation description for: > > https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html > > http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html > > https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide I read quickly through them and vote for: no, please let us get rid of them. > I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search results on > duck duck go. > > And then you click through the history. > > My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get rid of those pages as quickly as possible. Or, better, have them redirect straight to https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO so that who clicks on the outdated links is redirected to the more up to date documentation. Best regards, -- rigo http://rigo.altervista.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Old build Documentation
Hello all, do we still need the documentation description for: https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search results on duck duck go. And then you click through the history. My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build Can we retire those pages? We have them in the repository if needed. All the Best Peter -- This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
