On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Long term, remapping even the deep links to the appropriate part of the
new docs should hopefully be possible.
For the search engine issue, is there any way we can tell robots to
ignore the rewrite rules so they see the
For the search engine issue, is there any way we can tell robots to
ignore the rewrite rules so they see the broken links? (although even
that may not be ideal, since what we really want is to tell the robot
the link is broken, and provide the new alternative)
I may be missing something
I hotfixed docs.python.org and www.python.org/doc with some cutesy improv --
the URLs changed from .../lib/ to ../library/, and any HTML pages inside
them are completely different. So, any http://docs.python.org/lib/... URL
now redirects to the toplevel http://docs.python.org/library/ (and similar
Thomas Wouters thomas at python.org writes:
If anyone feels particularly frustrated by the old URLs breaking, I wouldn't
mind adding a redirection for each individual URL as long as I don't have to
build that mapping
Well in general URLs aren't supposed to break (except the ones which are
On Oct 2, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:44, Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thomas Wouters thomas at python.org writes:
If anyone feels particularly frustrated by the old URLs breaking,
I wouldn't
mind adding a redirection for each
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there is
quite a lot of 'else' in the 2.5-and-earlier docs -- needs a better
mapping. Feel free
Doug Hellmann schrieb:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there is
quite a lot of 'else' in the 2.5-and-earlier docs -- needs a
Doug Hellmann wrote:
Perhaps it has already been suggested and rejected for some reason, but
we could include the major/minor version numbers in the URLs. That
would make it easier to rewrite old URLs, and I assume there will be 2.x
and 3.x documentation available online for some period of
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Hellmann schrieb:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:44, Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Wouters thomas at python.org writes:
If anyone feels particularly frustrated by the old URLs breaking, I
wouldn't
mind adding a redirection for each individual URL as long as I don't have
to
build that mapping
Georg Brandl wrote:
Nevertheless, I will come up with a mapping for the old module URLs,
which is relatively easy.
Best solution of all :)
I was actually only suggesting redirecting to the old docs until such a
mapping was available - but if that mapping will be available fairly
soon, then
Adam Olsen schrieb:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Hellmann schrieb:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but
On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:17 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Doug Hellmann schrieb:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there is
quite a lot of
On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:34 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
If linking to the new version could be done easily, we could as well
directly
redirect. The problem is that having that mapping in the first place
is hard.
I was looking for the easy route. If the layout of the new docs
changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Georg Brandl wrote:
Adam Olsen schrieb:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Hellmann schrieb:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a
Tres Seaver schrieb:
Georg Brandl wrote:
docs.pyhton.org/ (note no *) could redirect to docs.python.org/2.6/ and
include a link to docs.python.org/3.0/
We already have archived versioned docs at http://www.python.org/doc/X.Y.
Why not use versioned URLs, but with a link at the top of old
Georg Brandl wrote:
That's true; it's also not what I meant. The versioned docs will of course
always stay there. The question is what to do for URLs that refer to
docs.python.org, but with old filenames.
I still like the idea of redirecting such URLs to the old 2.5.2 docs as
a short-term fix,
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there is
quite a lot of 'else' in the 2.5-and-earlier docs -- needs a better
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 15:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there is
quite a lot of
Nick The old doc directories are already kept around (all the way back
Nick to 1.4 in fact: http://www.python.org/doc/1.4/)
Nick As a quick fix for the old links, a rewrite rule to map such links
Nick to the 2.5 docs seems like a very good idea to me. Since old URLs
Nick all
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 15:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick The old doc directories are already kept around (all the way back
Nick to 1.4 in fact: http://www.python.org/doc/1.4/)
Nick As a quick fix for the old links, a rewrite rule to map such links
Nick to the 2.5 docs seems
Why not use versioned URLs, but with a link at the top of old pages
saying they're outdated, linking to the new version. Either way they
should update their links, but this way you don't shoot them in the
foot to do it.
Wouldn't that require changes to the old pages?
Regards,
Martin
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not use versioned URLs, but with a link at the top of old pages
saying they're outdated, linking to the new version. Either way they
should update their links, but this way you don't shoot them in the
foot to do it.
Wouldn't that require changes to the old pages?
Hopefully just to whatever common templating they're using. I'm not
familiar with how they're generated though.
That's exactly the problem: they are generated. I don't think it's
feasible to regenerate them, and still expect the output to be
Thomas Wouters schrieb:
After discussing on #python-dev (briefly), I made the toplevel
directories refer to the new, 2.6 toplevel directories, but deeper URLs
in the old directories redirect to www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/
http://www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/. I still think this is the wrong
Thomas Wouters wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 15:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nick The old doc directories are already kept around (all the
way back
Nick to 1.4 in fact: http://www.python.org/doc/1.4/)
Nick As a quick fix for the old
26 matches
Mail list logo
