activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Documentation for older releases on WebSite
Date Thu, 09 May 2019 22:49:32 GMT
Thats definitely true, and why in the end I dont have a problem
removing older releases content from the site. I do think having some
period of release docs available on the site can be good though, as
its easier for ourselves to point folks to relevant version-specific
doc details if they are on the site, and regrettably many folks tend
not to be on the current version.

On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 18:19, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm thinking about just keeping the _latest, as the download package
> also includes the entire documentation.
>
> Someone willing to use the old version would be able to look at the
> specific version.. or even github/docs.
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:44 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think trimming older release doc content to keep the site managable
> > is reasonable, and there are various approaches that could be used to
> > trim things. Over at Qpid we tend to trim down to the last 2 years or
> > so of release docs every now and then (its overdue currently, carrying
> > just over 3). If taking an approach like that, as example there would
> > clearly be old Artemis docs that could be removed. Another approach
> > might be, removing even more docs for version streams not considered
> > the current for some time, e.g maybe now all the 1.x Artemis docs
> > could go except the latest 1.5.6 release.
> >
> > Looking at the size and content of the release docs themselves is
> > perhaps also important. Having a peek at whats there currently for the
> > refreshed ActiveMQ site, I see the 5.x javadocs are using about 400MB
> > per release, but over half of it looks to be for source html. If so, I
> > think thats of limited value personally, with IDEs often pulling
> > source(+javadoc) jars directly and browsers having various web UI
> > options such as GitHub etc to utilise. Thats >200MB per release I
> > think we could perhaps remove and substitute with a link to the
> > release tag.
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> > On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 22:25, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do we still need to provide documentation for older releases?
> > > A big portion of the size now on the website is due to older releases.
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe we should stop doing that, after all if you go to the
> > > archive on previous releases, the binary will include documentations.
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic

Mime
View raw message