You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> on 2022/05/06 01:50:36 UTC
[DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to be a
lot of old releases in there.
Over the years this has accumulated a few already
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the older
version with the docs anyway.
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Again. I would just serve the latest only. A lot simpler to manage :)
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:35 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> We can definitely do redirects. There's already a handful in place from
> when the original website was refactored. See here [1].
>
>
> Justin
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/blob/main/src/.htaccess
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 3:13 PM Michael André Pearce
> <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > So what happens now if those pages are removed? Google will send users to
> > non-existent pages…..
> >
> > If we do that is it possible to put auto redirects in or something to
> > latest? So if someone googles they at least get redirected instead of a
> 404
> > and then stumped….
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 9 May 2022, at 18:01, Havret <h4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yep, every single time I google sth artemis related I end up in the old
> > > docs.
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:54 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> One reason to remove old docs is that folks who don't know better
> > >> invariably read old docs rather than the latest and greatest. This is
> > >> usually caused by search engines handing out old links.
> > >>
> > >> I'm +1 to remove them.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Justin
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:53 PM Michael André Pearce
> > >> <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> What harm is there in keeping old docs? I’m a little -1 removal of
> old
> > >>> docs unless there’s areal pressing driver that cannot be addressed /
> > >>> resolved.
> > >>>
> > >>> E.g. what is the driver here?
> > >>>
> > >>> Space on the http server? I’d be a bit surprised if it was due to
> this
> > >>> docs aren’t that huge, and in this day and age even my mobile
> probably
> > >> can
> > >>> store all historical docs fine….
> > >>>
> > >>> If it’s build time of website, can old docs not be generated once and
> > >>> marked to not rebuild for website rebuild by default, probably want
> to
> > >> have
> > >>> a flag to force a rebuild if really needed…
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Sent from my iPad
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 6 May 2022, at 14:12, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think that can have its own issues in terms of most easily (for
> us
> > >>>> and them) directing folks to the appropriate bit of doc when
> answering
> > >>>> a question, given how often users love to ask questions about
> > >>>> not-latest versions. I've found maintaining a window of docs to be a
> > >>>> good balance.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> E.g consider that you just change the default of some values; having
> > >>>> only the current docs will likely mislead other people on the
> > >>>> behaviour. Sometimes even those that wrote it, because they forgot,
> > >>>> and are looking at the doc to find out what it does :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 13:26, Clebert Suconic <
> > >> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I would prefer only keeping the current doc... older docs are part
> of
> > >>>>> the zip bundle anyways, right?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > >>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
> > >>>>>> size of the site content and since people should be using the more
> > >>>>>> recent things already.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links
> to
> > >>>>>> the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
> > >>>>>> versions docs. We typically keep the last 2-3 years of the release
> > >>>>>> specific pages/download links/docs etc available on the site.
> > >>>>>> Infrequently we then trim the oldest ones out to get back nearer
> the
> > >> 2
> > >>>>>> years. Rinse and repeat. Link to the archive for anything not on
> the
> > >>>>>> site.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 02:51, Clebert Suconic <
> > >>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to
> be a
> > >>>>>>> lot of old releases in there.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Over the years this has accumulated a few already
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the
> > >> older
> > >>>>>>> version with the docs anyway.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
We can definitely do redirects. There's already a handful in place from
when the original website was refactored. See here [1].
Justin
[1] https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/blob/main/src/.htaccess
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 3:13 PM Michael André Pearce
<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> So what happens now if those pages are removed? Google will send users to
> non-existent pages…..
>
> If we do that is it possible to put auto redirects in or something to
> latest? So if someone googles they at least get redirected instead of a 404
> and then stumped….
>
>
>
> > On 9 May 2022, at 18:01, Havret <h4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yep, every single time I google sth artemis related I end up in the old
> > docs.
> >
> > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:54 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> One reason to remove old docs is that folks who don't know better
> >> invariably read old docs rather than the latest and greatest. This is
> >> usually caused by search engines handing out old links.
> >>
> >> I'm +1 to remove them.
> >>
> >>
> >> Justin
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:53 PM Michael André Pearce
> >> <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What harm is there in keeping old docs? I’m a little -1 removal of old
> >>> docs unless there’s areal pressing driver that cannot be addressed /
> >>> resolved.
> >>>
> >>> E.g. what is the driver here?
> >>>
> >>> Space on the http server? I’d be a bit surprised if it was due to this
> >>> docs aren’t that huge, and in this day and age even my mobile probably
> >> can
> >>> store all historical docs fine….
> >>>
> >>> If it’s build time of website, can old docs not be generated once and
> >>> marked to not rebuild for website rebuild by default, probably want to
> >> have
> >>> a flag to force a rebuild if really needed…
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>
> >>>> On 6 May 2022, at 14:12, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that can have its own issues in terms of most easily (for us
> >>>> and them) directing folks to the appropriate bit of doc when answering
> >>>> a question, given how often users love to ask questions about
> >>>> not-latest versions. I've found maintaining a window of docs to be a
> >>>> good balance.
> >>>>
> >>>> E.g consider that you just change the default of some values; having
> >>>> only the current docs will likely mislead other people on the
> >>>> behaviour. Sometimes even those that wrote it, because they forgot,
> >>>> and are looking at the doc to find out what it does :)
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 13:26, Clebert Suconic <
> >> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would prefer only keeping the current doc... older docs are part of
> >>>>> the zip bundle anyways, right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
> >>>>>> size of the site content and since people should be using the more
> >>>>>> recent things already.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links to
> >>>>>> the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
> >>>>>> versions docs. We typically keep the last 2-3 years of the release
> >>>>>> specific pages/download links/docs etc available on the site.
> >>>>>> Infrequently we then trim the oldest ones out to get back nearer the
> >> 2
> >>>>>> years. Rinse and repeat. Link to the archive for anything not on the
> >>>>>> site.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 02:51, Clebert Suconic <
> >>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to be a
> >>>>>>> lot of old releases in there.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Over the years this has accumulated a few already
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the
> >> older
> >>>>>>> version with the docs anyway.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Posted by Michael André Pearce <mi...@me.com.INVALID>.
So what happens now if those pages are removed? Google will send users to non-existent pages…..
If we do that is it possible to put auto redirects in or something to latest? So if someone googles they at least get redirected instead of a 404 and then stumped….
> On 9 May 2022, at 18:01, Havret <h4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yep, every single time I google sth artemis related I end up in the old
> docs.
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:54 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> One reason to remove old docs is that folks who don't know better
>> invariably read old docs rather than the latest and greatest. This is
>> usually caused by search engines handing out old links.
>>
>> I'm +1 to remove them.
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:53 PM Michael André Pearce
>> <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> What harm is there in keeping old docs? I’m a little -1 removal of old
>>> docs unless there’s areal pressing driver that cannot be addressed /
>>> resolved.
>>>
>>> E.g. what is the driver here?
>>>
>>> Space on the http server? I’d be a bit surprised if it was due to this
>>> docs aren’t that huge, and in this day and age even my mobile probably
>> can
>>> store all historical docs fine….
>>>
>>> If it’s build time of website, can old docs not be generated once and
>>> marked to not rebuild for website rebuild by default, probably want to
>> have
>>> a flag to force a rebuild if really needed…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>> On 6 May 2022, at 14:12, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think that can have its own issues in terms of most easily (for us
>>>> and them) directing folks to the appropriate bit of doc when answering
>>>> a question, given how often users love to ask questions about
>>>> not-latest versions. I've found maintaining a window of docs to be a
>>>> good balance.
>>>>
>>>> E.g consider that you just change the default of some values; having
>>>> only the current docs will likely mislead other people on the
>>>> behaviour. Sometimes even those that wrote it, because they forgot,
>>>> and are looking at the doc to find out what it does :)
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 13:26, Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer only keeping the current doc... older docs are part of
>>>>> the zip bundle anyways, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
>>>>>> size of the site content and since people should be using the more
>>>>>> recent things already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links to
>>>>>> the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
>>>>>> versions docs. We typically keep the last 2-3 years of the release
>>>>>> specific pages/download links/docs etc available on the site.
>>>>>> Infrequently we then trim the oldest ones out to get back nearer the
>> 2
>>>>>> years. Rinse and repeat. Link to the archive for anything not on the
>>>>>> site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 02:51, Clebert Suconic <
>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to be a
>>>>>>> lot of old releases in there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Over the years this has accumulated a few already
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the
>> older
>>>>>>> version with the docs anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Posted by Havret <h4...@gmail.com>.
Yep, every single time I google sth artemis related I end up in the old
docs.
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:54 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> One reason to remove old docs is that folks who don't know better
> invariably read old docs rather than the latest and greatest. This is
> usually caused by search engines handing out old links.
>
> I'm +1 to remove them.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:53 PM Michael André Pearce
> <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > What harm is there in keeping old docs? I’m a little -1 removal of old
> > docs unless there’s areal pressing driver that cannot be addressed /
> > resolved.
> >
> > E.g. what is the driver here?
> >
> > Space on the http server? I’d be a bit surprised if it was due to this
> > docs aren’t that huge, and in this day and age even my mobile probably
> can
> > store all historical docs fine….
> >
> > If it’s build time of website, can old docs not be generated once and
> > marked to not rebuild for website rebuild by default, probably want to
> have
> > a flag to force a rebuild if really needed…
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > > On 6 May 2022, at 14:12, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that can have its own issues in terms of most easily (for us
> > > and them) directing folks to the appropriate bit of doc when answering
> > > a question, given how often users love to ask questions about
> > > not-latest versions. I've found maintaining a window of docs to be a
> > > good balance.
> > >
> > > E.g consider that you just change the default of some values; having
> > > only the current docs will likely mislead other people on the
> > > behaviour. Sometimes even those that wrote it, because they forgot,
> > > and are looking at the doc to find out what it does :)
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 13:26, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I would prefer only keeping the current doc... older docs are part of
> > >> the zip bundle anyways, right?
> > >>
> > >>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
> > >>> size of the site content and since people should be using the more
> > >>> recent things already.
> > >>>
> > >>> For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links to
> > >>> the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
> > >>> versions docs. We typically keep the last 2-3 years of the release
> > >>> specific pages/download links/docs etc available on the site.
> > >>> Infrequently we then trim the oldest ones out to get back nearer the
> 2
> > >>> years. Rinse and repeat. Link to the archive for anything not on the
> > >>> site.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 02:51, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to be a
> > >>>> lot of old releases in there.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Over the years this has accumulated a few already
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the
> older
> > >>>> version with the docs anyway.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
One reason to remove old docs is that folks who don't know better
invariably read old docs rather than the latest and greatest. This is
usually caused by search engines handing out old links.
I'm +1 to remove them.
Justin
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:53 PM Michael André Pearce
<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> What harm is there in keeping old docs? I’m a little -1 removal of old
> docs unless there’s areal pressing driver that cannot be addressed /
> resolved.
>
> E.g. what is the driver here?
>
> Space on the http server? I’d be a bit surprised if it was due to this
> docs aren’t that huge, and in this day and age even my mobile probably can
> store all historical docs fine….
>
> If it’s build time of website, can old docs not be generated once and
> marked to not rebuild for website rebuild by default, probably want to have
> a flag to force a rebuild if really needed…
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 6 May 2022, at 14:12, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think that can have its own issues in terms of most easily (for us
> > and them) directing folks to the appropriate bit of doc when answering
> > a question, given how often users love to ask questions about
> > not-latest versions. I've found maintaining a window of docs to be a
> > good balance.
> >
> > E.g consider that you just change the default of some values; having
> > only the current docs will likely mislead other people on the
> > behaviour. Sometimes even those that wrote it, because they forgot,
> > and are looking at the doc to find out what it does :)
> >
> >> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 13:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would prefer only keeping the current doc... older docs are part of
> >> the zip bundle anyways, right?
> >>
> >>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
> >>> size of the site content and since people should be using the more
> >>> recent things already.
> >>>
> >>> For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links to
> >>> the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
> >>> versions docs. We typically keep the last 2-3 years of the release
> >>> specific pages/download links/docs etc available on the site.
> >>> Infrequently we then trim the oldest ones out to get back nearer the 2
> >>> years. Rinse and repeat. Link to the archive for anything not on the
> >>> site.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 02:51, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to be a
> >>>> lot of old releases in there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Over the years this has accumulated a few already
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the older
> >>>> version with the docs anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
For me, holding a significant (years) window of docs/releases on the
site and then clearing out things beyond that every so often is
reasonable for a variety of reasons.
It leaves the more recent docs/releases we might expect people are
likely to be using available on the site, which is good for them and
for us, but it removes multiple-years-old things that we wouldnt
reasonably expect or want anyone to be using where much newer releases
exist, and the project doesnt really support anymore anyway. Updating
the site helps make that all clearer and the bits can ultimately still
always be found in the archive if really needed, which the site would
still note.
It also helps keep the site content in check both for the space it is
using on the web servers and on developer machines. The source for the
site is currently ~2.5GB with a rather large number of files (which is
probably as impactful rather than just the size alone). With git
metadata and build output etc you need 6GB+ to actually work on it. In
itself thats not too bad, yes I can also fit it on my phone, but
multiply that kind of size by the number of different projects which
the foundation has or that individual people work on, and it all
starts to add up to much bigger numbers and points where it is
actually something worth keeping in check.
It also helps keep the build from getting ever slower for those few
actually working on updating the site regularly, both locally when
working on updates and later for the actual live update on push. The
CI build now 'only' takes ~3 minutes to update the site on push thanks
to the faster env that job moved to at some point, but it used to take
6+ minutes not that long ago. I'm not sure how workable the 'dont
build bits to speed things up' idea is with the way the site works,
especially the actual remote build that updates the content for the
webserver, where it replaces and compares the output of the checked-in
output branch to decide what output updates there were that it now
needs to check in and deploy. Regardless, I think its just simplest
all round to just keep the build in check by removing the
really-pretty-old stuff that few should be looking at.
On Sat, 7 May 2022 at 05:46, Michael André Pearce
<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> What harm is there in keeping old docs? I’m a little -1 removal of old docs unless there’s areal pressing driver that cannot be addressed / resolved.
>
> E.g. what is the driver here?
>
> Space on the http server? I’d be a bit surprised if it was due to this docs aren’t that huge, and in this day and age even my mobile probably can store all historical docs fine….
>
> If it’s build time of website, can old docs not be generated once and marked to not rebuild for website rebuild by default, probably want to have a flag to force a rebuild if really needed…
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 6 May 2022, at 14:12, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think that can have its own issues in terms of most easily (for us
> > and them) directing folks to the appropriate bit of doc when answering
> > a question, given how often users love to ask questions about
> > not-latest versions. I've found maintaining a window of docs to be a
> > good balance.
> >
> > E.g consider that you just change the default of some values; having
> > only the current docs will likely mislead other people on the
> > behaviour. Sometimes even those that wrote it, because they forgot,
> > and are looking at the doc to find out what it does :)
> >
> >> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 13:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would prefer only keeping the current doc... older docs are part of
> >> the zip bundle anyways, right?
> >>
> >>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
> >>> size of the site content and since people should be using the more
> >>> recent things already.
> >>>
> >>> For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links to
> >>> the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
> >>> versions docs. We typically keep the last 2-3 years of the release
> >>> specific pages/download links/docs etc available on the site.
> >>> Infrequently we then trim the oldest ones out to get back nearer the 2
> >>> years. Rinse and repeat. Link to the archive for anything not on the
> >>> site.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 02:51, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to be a
> >>>> lot of old releases in there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Over the years this has accumulated a few already
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the older
> >>>> version with the docs anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
The driver: I just thought it was pointless to serve docs for older
versions. That’s all
On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 12:46 AM Michael André Pearce
<mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> What harm is there in keeping old docs? I’m a little -1 removal of old
> docs unless there’s areal pressing driver that cannot be addressed /
> resolved.
>
> E.g. what is the driver here?
>
> Space on the http server? I’d be a bit surprised if it was due to this
> docs aren’t that huge, and in this day and age even my mobile probably can
> store all historical docs fine….
>
> If it’s build time of website, can old docs not be generated once and
> marked to not rebuild for website rebuild by default, probably want to have
> a flag to force a rebuild if really needed…
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 6 May 2022, at 14:12, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think that can have its own issues in terms of most easily (for us
> > and them) directing folks to the appropriate bit of doc when answering
> > a question, given how often users love to ask questions about
> > not-latest versions. I've found maintaining a window of docs to be a
> > good balance.
> >
> > E.g consider that you just change the default of some values; having
> > only the current docs will likely mislead other people on the
> > behaviour. Sometimes even those that wrote it, because they forgot,
> > and are looking at the doc to find out what it does :)
> >
> >> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 13:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would prefer only keeping the current doc... older docs are part of
> >> the zip bundle anyways, right?
> >>
> >>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
> >>> size of the site content and since people should be using the more
> >>> recent things already.
> >>>
> >>> For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links to
> >>> the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
> >>> versions docs. We typically keep the last 2-3 years of the release
> >>> specific pages/download links/docs etc available on the site.
> >>> Infrequently we then trim the oldest ones out to get back nearer the 2
> >>> years. Rinse and repeat. Link to the archive for anything not on the
> >>> site.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 02:51, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to be a
> >>>> lot of old releases in there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Over the years this has accumulated a few already
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the older
> >>>> version with the docs anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Posted by Michael André Pearce <mi...@me.com.INVALID>.
What harm is there in keeping old docs? I’m a little -1 removal of old docs unless there’s areal pressing driver that cannot be addressed / resolved.
E.g. what is the driver here?
Space on the http server? I’d be a bit surprised if it was due to this docs aren’t that huge, and in this day and age even my mobile probably can store all historical docs fine….
If it’s build time of website, can old docs not be generated once and marked to not rebuild for website rebuild by default, probably want to have a flag to force a rebuild if really needed…
Sent from my iPad
> On 6 May 2022, at 14:12, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think that can have its own issues in terms of most easily (for us
> and them) directing folks to the appropriate bit of doc when answering
> a question, given how often users love to ask questions about
> not-latest versions. I've found maintaining a window of docs to be a
> good balance.
>
> E.g consider that you just change the default of some values; having
> only the current docs will likely mislead other people on the
> behaviour. Sometimes even those that wrote it, because they forgot,
> and are looking at the doc to find out what it does :)
>
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 13:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would prefer only keeping the current doc... older docs are part of
>> the zip bundle anyways, right?
>>
>>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
>>> size of the site content and since people should be using the more
>>> recent things already.
>>>
>>> For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links to
>>> the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
>>> versions docs. We typically keep the last 2-3 years of the release
>>> specific pages/download links/docs etc available on the site.
>>> Infrequently we then trim the oldest ones out to get back nearer the 2
>>> years. Rinse and repeat. Link to the archive for anything not on the
>>> site.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 02:51, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to be a
>>>> lot of old releases in there.
>>>>
>>>> Over the years this has accumulated a few already
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the older
>>>> version with the docs anyway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I think that can have its own issues in terms of most easily (for us
and them) directing folks to the appropriate bit of doc when answering
a question, given how often users love to ask questions about
not-latest versions. I've found maintaining a window of docs to be a
good balance.
E.g consider that you just change the default of some values; having
only the current docs will likely mislead other people on the
behaviour. Sometimes even those that wrote it, because they forgot,
and are looking at the doc to find out what it does :)
On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 13:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would prefer only keeping the current doc... older docs are part of
> the zip bundle anyways, right?
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
> > size of the site content and since people should be using the more
> > recent things already.
> >
> > For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links to
> > the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
> > versions docs. We typically keep the last 2-3 years of the release
> > specific pages/download links/docs etc available on the site.
> > Infrequently we then trim the oldest ones out to get back nearer the 2
> > years. Rinse and repeat. Link to the archive for anything not on the
> > site.
> >
> > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 02:51, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
> > >
> > >
> > > If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to be a
> > > lot of old releases in there.
> > >
> > > Over the years this has accumulated a few already
> > >
> > >
> > > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the older
> > > version with the docs anyway.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I would prefer only keeping the current doc... older docs are part of
the zip bundle anyways, right?
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
> size of the site content and since people should be using the more
> recent things already.
>
> For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links to
> the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
> versions docs. We typically keep the last 2-3 years of the release
> specific pages/download links/docs etc available on the site.
> Infrequently we then trim the oldest ones out to get back nearer the 2
> years. Rinse and repeat. Link to the archive for anything not on the
> site.
>
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 02:51, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
> >
> >
> > If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to be a
> > lot of old releases in there.
> >
> > Over the years this has accumulated a few already
> >
> >
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
> >
> >
> >
> > If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the older
> > version with the docs anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Old releases docs on artemis...
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I think it is reasonable to remove older docs, both to control the
size of the site content and since people should be using the more
recent things already.
For Qpid the main docs page links to the current docs, and links to
the 'past releases' page where each release page then has that
versions docs. We typically keep the last 2-3 years of the release
specific pages/download links/docs etc available on the site.
Infrequently we then trim the oldest ones out to get back nearer the 2
years. Rinse and repeat. Link to the archive for anything not on the
site.
On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 02:51, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can we stop storing old releases documentation on the website?
>
>
> If we start to release bi weekly as we proposed, it's going to be a
> lot of old releases in there.
>
> Over the years this has accumulated a few already
>
>
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/
>
>
>
> If users want a previous doc, they can always just download the older
> version with the docs anyway.
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic