RE: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?
> -Original Message- > From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 4:31 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > On 12/31/2020 4:38 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 9:42 PM > >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > > >> I agree entirely that archiving is a waste of time and > effort when the > >> current tools already can do what is needed. > > > > And this is theory, because where is the evidence that the > current tools can do that? > > The fact that the tools can restore any old editing state > is something else than that everyone has access to the old > web and wiki pages. > > > > > > Jörg > > > Jorg; > > Your lack of understanding of how the tools work does not constitute > them being a theory. This is indisputably possible. But what I don't understand is the, excuse me, low willingness to help. I understand that you do not always want to repeat things, but sometimes the "RTFM" is unfortunately too little help, even for people willing to learn. I have made it clear here what I need for my daily voluntary work and it should actually be understood that I am concerned that information can be lost (or become less accessible). Also, I have named what I do for about 15 years daily volunteer to make it clear what I myself contribute to the project. Is it wrong if I expect in a community, actually like-minded people, to help me to understand what I need to understand, especially if others should notice that my questions or comments go in the wrong direction? Currently, for example, I found Dave's email to be the most helpful of the entire thread, because I realize that Dave realizes I need help and he is trying to give me the appropriate help. 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 3:25 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > Goto https://GitHub.com/Apache/OpenOffice-org/ to enter the > current website “house”. I'm sorry, what does "house" mean? > Read the docs and look at the branches. Educate yourself to > the current technical details. > > Ask educated questions after Jan 1 in a single email in a new thread. yes, OK. > We also have the svn repos which has all the changes from Dec > 2011-Oct 2020. Trust me for now. I’ll provide a URL in a few days. OK, I will trust you Thank you. 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?
On 12/31/2020 4:38 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 9:42 PM >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > >> I agree entirely that archiving is a waste of time and effort when the >> current tools already can do what is needed. > > And this is theory, because where is the evidence that the current tools can > do that? > The fact that the tools can restore any old editing state is something else > than that everyone has access to the old web and wiki pages. > > > Jörg > Jorg; Your lack of understanding of how the tools work does not constitute them being a theory. You asked for proof here it is: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:ListRedirects. As you see there are hundreds of redirects in the mwiki. The process by which they can be created is explained in the MediaWiki documentation which is linked to in the mwiki sidebar. Regards Keith signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?
Goto https://GitHub.com/Apache/OpenOffice-org/ to enter the current website “house”. Read the docs and look at the branches. Educate yourself to the current technical details. Ask educated questions after Jan 1 in a single email in a new thread. We also have the svn repos which has all the changes from Dec 2011-Oct 2020. Trust me for now. I’ll provide a URL in a few days. The ASF keeps all of repositories on our infrastructure forever. All changes and builds are logged. Look at comm...@openoffice.apache.org Thanks, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 31, 2020, at 1:30 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 11:06 AM >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? >> >> >>> On 30.12.20 00:08, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> >>>> On Dec 29, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Fernando Cassia >> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue., 29 Dec. 2020, 05:55 Jörg Schmidt, >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a >> footer on each >>>>> archive page informing that this is an archive page plus >> a link to the >>>>> start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. >>>>> >>>> I like the model used by Mozilla here: >>>> >>>> >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/Browser_D >> etection_and_Cross_Browser_Support >>>> >>>> Header " *This is an archived page.* It's not actively maintained." >>>> >>>> Blurb: " *Warning:* *The content of this article may be >> out of date.* This >>>> article was written in 2003" >>> I like that approach. >>> >>> I’ll work to support it. >> >> I can work with this too. However currently you can select one or the >> other for all our pages. >> >> In the discussion we have to go through each page and decide >> what we do >> with this page. I do not believe there is any way to get around the >> principle. >> >> That is why I would like to have a basic concept that we can >> apply. And >> the concept should encourage work and not block it. In this >> context this >> seems like a fair approach > > The basic concept is simple: > > 1. create an archive of all web and wiki pages (a static archive should > suffice). > > 2. create a basic structure for the new web and wiki (start with one of them) > and consider technical constraints (e.g. the new CMS) > > 3. fill this basic structure with new pages by either: > -creating a new page from scratch > -taking an existing old page and updating it and adding an edit note to this > old page in the archive and a link to the new page. > > > And all we should do NOW! is to start with point 1. or finally clarify why it > can not be started. > What is nonsense is to wait with point 1. BECAUSE we have not yet clarified > all Details for 2. and 3. > > > > Why? > When I build a house, I also build the walls and the roof without having > discussed beforehand which color the carpet should have later. > > > Jörg > > > - > 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 9:42 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > I agree entirely that archiving is a waste of time and effort when the > current tools already can do what is needed. And this is theory, because where is the evidence that the current tools can do that? The fact that the tools can restore any old editing state is something else than that everyone has access to the old web and wiki pages. 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 9:12 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > >> That may be the best way to proceed at the moment. If we know what > >> articles need work we can pool our resources and develop a plan to > >> update what we can to a usable level. > > > > Yes, without a doubt, but it has nothing to do with archiving. > > I respectfully disagree that this thread is only about archiving. If this is about more than the archive we should open a separate thread to discuss the archive question. 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 11:06 AM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > > On 30.12.20 00:08, Dave Fisher wrote: > > > >> On Dec 29, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Fernando Cassia > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue., 29 Dec. 2020, 05:55 Jörg Schmidt, > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a > footer on each > >>> archive page informing that this is an archive page plus > a link to the > >>> start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. > >>> > >> I like the model used by Mozilla here: > >> > >> > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/Browser_D > etection_and_Cross_Browser_Support > >> > >> Header " *This is an archived page.* It's not actively maintained." > >> > >> Blurb: " *Warning:* *The content of this article may be > out of date.* This > >> article was written in 2003" > > I like that approach. > > > > I’ll work to support it. > > I can work with this too. However currently you can select one or the > other for all our pages. > > In the discussion we have to go through each page and decide > what we do > with this page. I do not believe there is any way to get around the > principle. > > That is why I would like to have a basic concept that we can > apply. And > the concept should encourage work and not block it. In this > context this > seems like a fair approach The basic concept is simple: 1. create an archive of all web and wiki pages (a static archive should suffice). 2. create a basic structure for the new web and wiki (start with one of them) and consider technical constraints (e.g. the new CMS) 3. fill this basic structure with new pages by either: -creating a new page from scratch -taking an existing old page and updating it and adding an edit note to this old page in the archive and a link to the new page. And all we should do NOW! is to start with point 1. or finally clarify why it can not be started. What is nonsense is to wait with point 1. BECAUSE we have not yet clarified all Details for 2. and 3. Why? When I build a house, I also build the walls and the roof without having discussed beforehand which color the carpet should have later. 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 4:47 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > The two websites are in a Git repository and changes can be > reverted. There is no need to be concerned about mistakes. > > MediaWiki pages track versions. I think (but need > confirmation) that as long as pages are not moved or deleted > that changes can be reverted. > > I fail to see a need to officially archive separately when > our tools already fill this need. I don't see such a need either *IF* things are as you describe. But are things really like that? Personally, I don't know if things are like that because I lack the technical background knowledge. what I'm wondering is, therefore: Is the git repository a reliable archive in the long run? Does the existence of the git entries also make it possible to access the old website/wiki at any time and not only its 'technical background platform' (=entries in git)? For me, for example, it is unclear that if we have Git and also have a CMS, what happens when we switch to the new CMS. If (I don't know) the old Git entries are then no longer 'displayed' because the old CMS is no longer running, the Git entries are no good as an archive. > Plus, the Way Back Machine - web.archive.org is crawling our > websites since 2011. absolutely unusable, because no complete archive! Even my private archive of our web pages and wiki is more complete, although far from complete. 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?
On 12/30/2020 10:46 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 30, 2020, at 2:06 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote: >> >> >>> On 30.12.20 00:08, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> > On Dec 29, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote: > On Tue., 29 Dec. 2020, 05:55 Jörg Schmidt, wrote: > > > Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each > archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the > start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. > I like the model used by Mozilla here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/Browser_Detection_and_Cross_Browser_Support Header " *This is an archived page.* It's not actively maintained." Blurb: " *Warning:* *The content of this article may be out of date.* This article was written in 2003" >>> I like that approach. >>> >>> I’ll work to support it. >> >> I can work with this too. However currently you can select one or the other >> for all our pages. >> >> In the discussion we have to go through each page and decide what we do with >> this page. I do not believe there is any way to get around the principle. >> >> That is why I would like to have a basic concept that we can apply. And the >> concept should encourage work and not block it. In this context this seems >> like a fair approach > > The two websites are in a Git repository and changes can be reverted. There > is no need to be concerned about mistakes. > > MediaWiki pages track versions. I think (but need confirmation) that as long > as pages are not moved or deleted that changes can be reverted. You are correct Dave and they can also be redirected if the entire document is outdated and have the new document opened if someone clicks on the outdated link. > > I fail to see a need to officially archive separately when our tools already > fill this need. I agree entirely that archiving is a waste of time and effort when the current tools already can do what is needed. Regards Keith > > Plus, the Way Back Machine - web.archive.org is crawling our websites since > 2011. > > Regards, > Dave >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?
On 12/30/2020 7:29 AM, Carl Marcum wrote: > Hi Jörg, > > On 12/30/20 1:42 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 7:55 PM >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? >>> >>> Hi Jörg, >>> >>> On 12/29/20 3:54 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: >>>> > We all contribute where we a happiest :) > > I think for something like the developer guides (Basic included) that it > is more likely that a paragraph may be outdated rather than a whole page > and how do we also account for that. That is more than likely a correct statement Carl and there are ways to deal with it. There are many templates in the mwiki designed for just this type of thing. They can be found in the Wiki Editing Policy at https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Dashboard/Wiki_Editing_Policy#List_of_Existing_Documentation_Templates. If we need a new one specific to this problem I can make a new one or anyone can by following the directions at https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Dashboard/Wiki_Editing_Policy#Adding_a_new_Documentation_Template. > > And we need a way that someone who can and wants to fix things can find > them. Tags, keywords, etc. > One could file a fig in Bugzilla using the Product Infrastructure then give a link to the document you are writing it about and gin any or all sections marked with the template. Regards Keith > Best regards, > Carl signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?
On 12/30/2020 2:18 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 2:29 AM >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > >>> If only parts are outdated, then the complete page cannot >> be outdated. >>> Then we have to mark only the respective parts as outdated. >>> >> >> This has been a problem on the wiki for years, even before the project >> came to Apache. It has only gotten worse as we have hemorrhaged people >> capable of keeping these pages up to date. >> >> >>>> Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they >> are needed >>>> (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or >> in forums). >>>> Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical >> info for the >>>> creation of extensions: >>>> >> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extens >> ions/Extensions >>>> >>> >>> Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages >> to dev@ and >>> judge case by case what to do. >>> >> That may be the best way to proceed at the moment. If we know what >> articles need work we can pool our resources and develop a plan to >> update what we can to a usable level. > > Yes, without a doubt, but it has nothing to do with archiving. I respectfully disagree that this thread is only about archiving. The thread started as a general question about how to handle outdated wiki documentation. Some one changed the tittle of the thread and put archiving? in the tittle. That does not constitute changing the subject of the thread. At best it adds a sub-topic. > > The discussion here is already huge, but we're not making any progress > because we're talking too much about the details. That is what a discussion is supposed to be all about; discovering other ways to do what is being asked about. > > If I, comparatively, have a file whose contents I want to update, what do I > do? > > 1. I make a copy of the file first, just to be safe. > 2. I make the necessary changes to the file. > > And regarding the website and the wiki, we should first clarify how to do > point 1, where the term for this is not "copy", but "archive". > That is really a very simple question too answer. The mwiki makes a new version every time you save your edits. If the edits are not to your liking you can either edit that new version, or revert the current back to the previous one. Both Websites are now in separate repositories in or gitbox repository. any committer can make changes to the pages which will be sent first to the staging website where they can be viewed and decide whether or not they meet your intent. Like all other commits they can also be reverted if they get to the website and there are objections to them or edited again to make the needed corrections or additions. Regards Keith > > > Jörg > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 30, 2020, at 2:06 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote: > > >> On 30.12.20 00:08, Dave Fisher wrote: >> On Dec 29, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote: >>> On Tue., 29 Dec. 2020, 05:55 Jörg Schmidt, wrote: >>> Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. >>> I like the model used by Mozilla here: >>> >>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/Browser_Detection_and_Cross_Browser_Support >>> >>> Header " *This is an archived page.* It's not actively maintained." >>> >>> Blurb: " *Warning:* *The content of this article may be out of date.* This >>> article was written in 2003" >> I like that approach. >> >> I’ll work to support it. > > I can work with this too. However currently you can select one or the other > for all our pages. > > In the discussion we have to go through each page and decide what we do with > this page. I do not believe there is any way to get around the principle. > > That is why I would like to have a basic concept that we can apply. And the > concept should encourage work and not block it. In this context this seems > like a fair approach The two websites are in a Git repository and changes can be reverted. There is no need to be concerned about mistakes. MediaWiki pages track versions. I think (but need confirmation) that as long as pages are not moved or deleted that changes can be reverted. I fail to see a need to officially archive separately when our tools already fill this need. Plus, the Way Back Machine - web.archive.org is crawling our websites since 2011. Regards, Dave > > > > -- > 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 > - 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?
Hi Jörg, On 12/30/20 1:42 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: -Original Message- From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 7:55 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? Hi Jörg, On 12/29/20 3:54 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: How do we want to define "outdated pages"? Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they are needed (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or in forums). Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical info for the creation of extensions: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extens ions/Extensions These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no more current information. Can you help identify where the outdated content in this section is? technical, yes, I can. But there are practical problems: It is hardly possible to identify obsolete content 'in one piece', because that would amount to working as follows: -read a piece of the Developersguide (e.g. one paragraph). -knowing what is outdated and marking/updating it _or_ if you don't know immediately what is outdated, checking it by testing it This way of working would take a lot of time. It would be more practical to mark outdated things whenever _you_ discover them while using the Developersguide. But this is a continuous process. And there is, for me personally, a problem: I work daily in the voluntary end user support (on users...@openoffice.apache.org and in the forum de.openoffice.info) and I work, since a long time, on the update of the German end user documentation - if I should update the Developersguide, I would have to give up this work, I don't think I want to give it up. Okay, I thought you may have a specific example. We all contribute where we a happiest :) I think for something like the developer guides (Basic included) that it is more likely that a paragraph may be outdated rather than a whole page and how do we also account for that. And we need a way that someone who can and wants to fix things can find them. Tags, keywords, etc. Best regards, Carl - 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?
On 30.12.20 00:08, Dave Fisher wrote: On Dec 29, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote: On Tue., 29 Dec. 2020, 05:55 Jörg Schmidt, wrote: Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. I like the model used by Mozilla here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/Browser_Detection_and_Cross_Browser_Support Header " *This is an archived page.* It's not actively maintained." Blurb: " *Warning:* *The content of this article may be out of date.* This article was written in 2003" I like that approach. I’ll work to support it. I can work with this too. However currently you can select one or the other for all our pages. In the discussion we have to go through each page and decide what we do with this page. I do not believe there is any way to get around the principle. That is why I would like to have a basic concept that we can apply. And the concept should encourage work and not block it. In this context this seems like a fair approach -- 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 2:29 AM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > If only parts are outdated, then the complete page cannot > be outdated. > > Then we have to mark only the respective parts as outdated. > > > > This has been a problem on the wiki for years, even before the project > came to Apache. It has only gotten worse as we have hemorrhaged people > capable of keeping these pages up to date. > > > >> Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they > are needed > >> (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or > in forums). > >> Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical > info for the > >> creation of extensions: > >> > https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extens > ions/Extensions > >> > > > > Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages > to dev@ and > > judge case by case what to do. > > > That may be the best way to proceed at the moment. If we know what > articles need work we can pool our resources and develop a plan to > update what we can to a usable level. Yes, without a doubt, but it has nothing to do with archiving. The discussion here is already huge, but we're not making any progress because we're talking too much about the details. If I, comparatively, have a file whose contents I want to update, what do I do? 1. I make a copy of the file first, just to be safe. 2. I make the necessary changes to the file. And regarding the website and the wiki, we should first clarify how to do point 1, where the term for this is not "copy", but "archive". 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 12:23 AM > To: dev > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > right, and here you have misunderstood me. ;-) > > > > Of course where it's clear just move it to the archive. > This should be the general way and process. > > Neither you nor Jörgen are clear what you mean by an archive. > Please define it carefully. Think about how much work yet > another website would be. I think it is an incorrect approach. OK, I want to give _my_ definition of archive: I personally already own an archive of the OO web pages and wiki in the form of a static copy using HTTrack (http://www.httrack.com/). That would be what I would call "archive", because a static copy of the pages is actually enough for me. However, using HTTrack, for various reasons, does not produce a perfect copy in practice. I suppose it would make more sense to make a direct copy of the sources of the website and the wiki, but I personally don't know how to do that. 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 12:06 AM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > Am 29.12.20 um 17:32 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 12:40 PM > >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > right, and here you have misunderstood me. ;-) > > Of course where it's clear just move it to the archive. This > should be > the general way and process. > > But there will be pages - or collection of pages - where it's > not clear. > Here we can judge case by case. Of course these shouldn't be many. Yes, I agree with this formulation (or approach). What I actually think is: -archiving is a technical process -this process is probably the most trouble-free and the least work-intensive, if no exceptions are made. so it seems to me that the best way to work is this: -archive everything, because that is (hopefully) fast -then, piece by piece, edit the archive where necessary 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 7:55 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > Hi Jörg, > > On 12/29/20 3:54 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > > > > How do we want to define "outdated pages"? > > > > Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they > are needed (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing > lists or in forums). > > Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical > info for the creation of extensions: > > > https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extens > ions/Extensions > > > > These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no > more current information. > Can you help identify where the outdated content in this section is? technical, yes, I can. But there are practical problems: It is hardly possible to identify obsolete content 'in one piece', because that would amount to working as follows: -read a piece of the Developersguide (e.g. one paragraph). -knowing what is outdated and marking/updating it _or_ if you don't know immediately what is outdated, checking it by testing it This way of working would take a lot of time. It would be more practical to mark outdated things whenever _you_ discover them while using the Developersguide. But this is a continuous process. And there is, for me personally, a problem: I work daily in the voluntary end user support (on users...@openoffice.apache.org and in the forum de.openoffice.info) and I work, since a long time, on the update of the German end user documentation - if I should update the Developersguide, I would have to give up this work, I don't think I want to give it up. 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Dave Fisher [mailto:wave4d...@comcast.net] > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 7:13 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 29, 2020, at 8:32 AM, Jörg Schmidt > wrote: > > > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 12:40 PM > >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > > >> Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages > >> to dev@ and > >> judge case by case what to do. > > > > I don't think that will bring good results. > > > > Is there any problem to archive all pages? If so, which one? > > Having just done the CMS migration I object. There are well > over 20,000 pages on OpenOffice-org. And what is problematic about 20,000 pages? > For example it would be easy to see that almost all of > www.OpenOffice.org/porting is obsolete. This is a joke? This page is one of the more up-to-date sites. I'm afraid you don't understand the problem. There is no one here who can objectively make such a mark because for different people and different work focuses the interests are quite different. For example, pages that are important for day-to-day support can be quite unimportant for developers and vice versa. > Process make a new > page on OpenOffice.Apache.org. Mark all of porting obsolete > and point to the new page. Excellent! But this has nothing to do with archiving directly, but with updating the pages. > > Why do I say (ask) this? > > Because, if we pick out only certain pages, the amount of > work to distinguish important pages from unimportant pages is > huge and errors can creep in very easily, and thus the loss > of important pages. > > Pages will remain and if mismarked can be unmarked. IF that were the case, the edin archive would be and we would not need to discuss further. But is that the case? Where are these pages accessible or where should they be accessible? Let me make one thing clear: if I said that a _static_ archive is enough, it's only because I think it would simplify the work. If we want to maintain a history of the pages, that would have my consent IMMEDIATELY - but I think it is not necessary and a static archive would be easier. 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?
On 12/29/2020 6:40 AM, Marcus wrote: > Am 29.12.20 um 09:54 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:24 AM >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? >>> >>> On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote: >>>> 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). >>> >>> This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content, >>> like the main >>> OpenOffice.org site). And I believe this is enough to our >>> preservation >>> purposes. >>> >>> For mwiki we have templates and that is probably fine; but >>> maybe we can >>> find a way (with appropriate plugins) to inject "[OUTDATED]" into the >>> HTML "title" tag of relevant pages, so that people who use search >>> engines will not be misled into outdated pages. >> >> How do we want to define "outdated pages"? > > in general, for me a page is outdated when there is a new one with > updated content. > > If only parts are outdated, then the complete page cannot be outdated. > Then we have to mark only the respective parts as outdated. > This has been a problem on the wiki for years, even before the project came to Apache. It has only gotten worse as we have hemorrhaged people capable of keeping these pages up to date. >> Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they are needed >> (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or in forums). >> Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical info for the >> creation of extensions: >> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extensions >> > > Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages to dev@ and > judge case by case what to do. > That may be the best way to proceed at the moment. If we know what articles need work we can pool our resources and develop a plan to update what we can to a usable level. regards Keith >> These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no more current >> information. >> >> >> We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) archive for >> previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of which we are sure that >> it includes all previous content. >> >> Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be a >> nice-to-have, but I wouldn't really want to spend time on that, >> especially since, as I just described with an example, it's difficult >> to clearly tell which pages are really outdated. >> >> Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on >> each archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link >> to the start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. > > The footer is only visible when you scroll comletely down. But many > pages are longer and the searched information is maybe not far away from > the top. Then you don't notice that the content is outdated. > > I don't recomemnd to put it in the footer. Having it on top is more > helpful. > > Marcus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?
> On Dec 29, 2020, at 3:05 PM, Marcus wrote: > > Am 29.12.20 um 17:32 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 12:40 PM >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? >>> Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages >>> to dev@ and >>> judge case by case what to do. >> I don't think that will bring good results. >> Is there any problem to archive all pages? If so, which one? >> Why do I say (ask) this? >> Because, if we pick out only certain pages, the amount of work to >> distinguish important pages from unimportant pages is huge and errors can >> creep in very easily, and thus the loss of important pages. > > right, and here you have misunderstood me. ;-) > > Of course where it's clear just move it to the archive. This should be the > general way and process. Neither you nor Jörgen are clear what you mean by an archive. Please define it carefully. Think about how much work yet another website would be. I think it is an incorrect approach. > > But there will be pages - or collection of pages - where it's not clear. Here > we can judge case by case. Of course these shouldn't be many. There are many, many more obsolete pages than you think - start here: http://www.openoffice.org/projects/ Regards, Dave > > Marcus > > > >>>> These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no >>> more current information. >>>> >>>> >>>> We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) >>> archive for previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of >>> which we are sure that it includes all previous content. >>>> >>>> Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be >>> a nice-to-have, but I wouldn't really want to spend time on >>> that, especially since, as I just described with an example, >>> it's difficult to clearly tell which pages are really outdated. >>>> >>>> Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a >>> footer on each archive page informing that this is an archive >>> page plus a link to the start page (web and wiki) of the >>> current pages. >>> >>> The footer is only visible when you scroll comletely down. But many >>> pages are longer and the searched information is maybe not >>> far away from >>> the top. Then you don't notice that the content is outdated. >>> >>> I don't recomemnd to put it in the footer. Having it on top >>> is more helpful. >> very gladly we can write the information alternatively in the header! >> (Or do you think I want to discuss whether header or footer? I don't care, >> any pragmatic solution is welcome.) > > > - > 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?
> On Dec 29, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote: > > On Tue., 29 Dec. 2020, 05:55 Jörg Schmidt, wrote: > >> >> >> >> Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each >> archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the >> start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. >> > > I like the model used by Mozilla here: > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/Browser_Detection_and_Cross_Browser_Support > > Header " *This is an archived page.* It's not actively maintained." > > Blurb: " *Warning:* *The content of this article may be out of date.* This > article was written in 2003" I like that approach. I’ll work to support it. Regards, Dave > > > FC > >> >> >> >> Jörg >> >> >> >> >> >> - >> 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?
Am 29.12.20 um 17:32 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: -Original Message- From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 12:40 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages to dev@ and judge case by case what to do. I don't think that will bring good results. Is there any problem to archive all pages? If so, which one? Why do I say (ask) this? Because, if we pick out only certain pages, the amount of work to distinguish important pages from unimportant pages is huge and errors can creep in very easily, and thus the loss of important pages. right, and here you have misunderstood me. ;-) Of course where it's clear just move it to the archive. This should be the general way and process. But there will be pages - or collection of pages - where it's not clear. Here we can judge case by case. Of course these shouldn't be many. Marcus These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no more current information. We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) archive for previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of which we are sure that it includes all previous content. Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be a nice-to-have, but I wouldn't really want to spend time on that, especially since, as I just described with an example, it's difficult to clearly tell which pages are really outdated. Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. The footer is only visible when you scroll comletely down. But many pages are longer and the searched information is maybe not far away from the top. Then you don't notice that the content is outdated. I don't recomemnd to put it in the footer. Having it on top is more helpful. very gladly we can write the information alternatively in the header! (Or do you think I want to discuss whether header or footer? I don't care, any pragmatic solution is welcome.) - 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?
On Tue., 29 Dec. 2020, 05:55 Jörg Schmidt, wrote: > > > > Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each > archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the > start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. > I like the model used by Mozilla here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/Browser_Detection_and_Cross_Browser_Support Header " *This is an archived page.* It's not actively maintained." Blurb: " *Warning:* *The content of this article may be out of date.* This article was written in 2003" FC > > > > 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?
Hi Jörg, On 12/29/20 3:54 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: How do we want to define "outdated pages"? Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they are needed (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or in forums). Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical info for the creation of extensions: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extensions These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no more current information. Can you help identify where the outdated content in this section is? I think it is important that the developer guide is brought up to date. I look at the developer guide more like a book that needs updated than a collection of individual pages like much of the wiki and perhaps what we decide for general wiki pages and guides are different. Just my thoughts. Best regards, Carl - 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?
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 29, 2020, at 8:32 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 12:40 PM >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > >> Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages >> to dev@ and >> judge case by case what to do. > > I don't think that will bring good results. > > Is there any problem to archive all pages? If so, which one? Having just done the CMS migration I object. There are well over 20,000 pages on OpenOffice-org. This issue needs to be taken one OOo “accepted” project at a time. For example it would be easy to see that almost all of www.OpenOffice.org/porting is obsolete. Process make a new page on OpenOffice.Apache.org. Mark all of porting obsolete and point to the new page. > > Why do I say (ask) this? > Because, if we pick out only certain pages, the amount of work to distinguish > important pages from unimportant pages is huge and errors can creep in very > easily, and thus the loss of important pages. Pages will remain and if mismarked can be unmarked. Regards, Dave > >>> These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no >> more current information. >>> >>> >>> We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) >> archive for previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of >> which we are sure that it includes all previous content. >>> >>> Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be >> a nice-to-have, but I wouldn't really want to spend time on >> that, especially since, as I just described with an example, >> it's difficult to clearly tell which pages are really outdated. >>> >>> Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a >> footer on each archive page informing that this is an archive >> page plus a link to the start page (web and wiki) of the >> current pages. >> >> The footer is only visible when you scroll comletely down. But many >> pages are longer and the searched information is maybe not >> far away from >> the top. Then you don't notice that the content is outdated. >> >> I don't recomemnd to put it in the footer. Having it on top >> is more helpful. > > very gladly we can write the information alternatively in the header! > > (Or do you think I want to discuss whether header or footer? I don't care, > any pragmatic solution is welcome.) > > > > Jörg > > > > - > 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 12:40 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages > to dev@ and > judge case by case what to do. I don't think that will bring good results. Is there any problem to archive all pages? If so, which one? Why do I say (ask) this? Because, if we pick out only certain pages, the amount of work to distinguish important pages from unimportant pages is huge and errors can creep in very easily, and thus the loss of important pages. > > These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no > more current information. > > > > > > We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) > archive for previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of > which we are sure that it includes all previous content. > > > > Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be > a nice-to-have, but I wouldn't really want to spend time on > that, especially since, as I just described with an example, > it's difficult to clearly tell which pages are really outdated. > > > > Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a > footer on each archive page informing that this is an archive > page plus a link to the start page (web and wiki) of the > current pages. > > The footer is only visible when you scroll comletely down. But many > pages are longer and the searched information is maybe not > far away from > the top. Then you don't notice that the content is outdated. > > I don't recomemnd to put it in the footer. Having it on top > is more helpful. very gladly we can write the information alternatively in the header! (Or do you think I want to discuss whether header or footer? I don't care, any pragmatic solution is welcome.) 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?
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 29, 2020, at 3:40 AM, Marcus wrote: > > Am 29.12.20 um 09:54 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:24 AM >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? >>> >>>> On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote: >>>>> 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). >>> >>> This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content, >>> like the main >>> OpenOffice.org site). And I believe this is enough to our >>> preservation >>> purposes. >>> >>> For mwiki we have templates and that is probably fine; but >>> maybe we can >>> find a way (with appropriate plugins) to inject "[OUTDATED]" into the >>> HTML "title" tag of relevant pages, so that people who use search >>> engines will not be misled into outdated pages. >> How do we want to define "outdated pages"? > > in general, for me a page is outdated when there is a new one with updated > content. > > If only parts are outdated, then the complete page cannot be outdated. Then > we have to mark only the respective parts as outdated. > >> Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they are needed (e.g. >> for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or in forums). >> Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical info for the >> creation of extensions: >> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extensions > > Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages to dev@ and judge > case by case what to do. > >> These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no more current >> information. >> We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) archive for >> previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of which we are sure that it >> includes all previous content. >> Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be a nice-to-have, >> but I wouldn't really want to spend time on that, especially since, as I >> just described with an example, it's difficult to clearly tell which pages >> are really outdated. >> Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each >> archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the start >> page (web and wiki) of the current pages. > > The footer is only visible when you scroll comletely down. But many pages are > longer and the searched information is maybe not far away from the top. Then > you don't notice that the content is outdated. > > I don't recomemnd to put it in the footer. Having it on top is more helpful. > I agree that messaging should be at the top. What we can do is allow metadata inserted at the top of the source and then modify templates to see this. (1) append a message to the html title. (2) provide a link to the updated page at the top of the content. Regards, Dave > Marcus > > > - > 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?
Am 29.12.20 um 09:54 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:24 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote: 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). This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content, like the main OpenOffice.org site). And I believe this is enough to our preservation purposes. For mwiki we have templates and that is probably fine; but maybe we can find a way (with appropriate plugins) to inject "[OUTDATED]" into the HTML "title" tag of relevant pages, so that people who use search engines will not be misled into outdated pages. How do we want to define "outdated pages"? in general, for me a page is outdated when there is a new one with updated content. If only parts are outdated, then the complete page cannot be outdated. Then we have to mark only the respective parts as outdated. Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they are needed (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or in forums). Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical info for the creation of extensions: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extensions Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages to dev@ and judge case by case what to do. These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no more current information. We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) archive for previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of which we are sure that it includes all previous content. Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be a nice-to-have, but I wouldn't really want to spend time on that, especially since, as I just described with an example, it's difficult to clearly tell which pages are really outdated. Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. The footer is only visible when you scroll comletely down. But many pages are longer and the searched information is maybe not far away from the top. Then you don't notice that the content is outdated. I don't recomemnd to put it in the footer. Having it on top is more helpful. Marcus - 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?
> -Original Message- > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:24 AM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? > > On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote: > > 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). > > This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content, > like the main > OpenOffice.org site). And I believe this is enough to our > preservation > purposes. > > For mwiki we have templates and that is probably fine; but > maybe we can > find a way (with appropriate plugins) to inject "[OUTDATED]" into the > HTML "title" tag of relevant pages, so that people who use search > engines will not be misled into outdated pages. How do we want to define "outdated pages"? Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they are needed (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or in forums). Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical info for the creation of extensions: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extensions These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no more current information. We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) archive for previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of which we are sure that it includes all previous content. Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be a nice-to-have, but I wouldn't really want to spend time on that, especially since, as I just described with an example, it's difficult to clearly tell which pages are really outdated. Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. 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?
On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote: 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). This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content, like the main OpenOffice.org site). And I believe this is enough to our preservation purposes. For mwiki we have templates and that is probably fine; but maybe we can find a way (with appropriate plugins) to inject "[OUTDATED]" into the HTML "title" tag of relevant pages, so that people who use search engines will not be misled into outdated pages. Regards, Andrea. - 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: 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
