camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Web site -> svn migration questions...
Date Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:50:39 GMT
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 08:38:21 PM Christian Müller wrote:
> We have to decide between a version which only contains options which are
> available in this version but we miss a few *OR* a version which contains
> all available options but also list options which are only available in
> newer versions (but describes this).
> I'm +1 for the second option.

If that's the case, we ONLY would need a single "camel-manual.pdf" file.   
It would pretty much "contains all available options but also list options 
which are only available in newer versions".    We wouldn't need all the 
various versions at all.  Just one.   I'm OK with that if that is 
acceptable.   
 
> And as long as I'm not know what is in the /maven/camel-x.y.z folder, I
> cannot make a decision.

I really think it's just the javadocs at this point.   We have a bunch of 
pages on the site that point to things like:


http://camel.apache.org/maven/current/camel-
core/apidocs/org/apache/camel/CamelContext.html

so I assume we need at least the "current" version of the javadocs there so 
the links work.   The question is do we really need all the versions or not?   
My gut feeling is no.   If someone needs them, they can grab them from 
Central (and now, I usually expect the IDE's to do that anyway).

Dan

 

> 
> Best,
> Christian
> 
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Monday, March 12, 2012 09:51:33 PM Christian Müller wrote:
> > > > 1) The manual/ dir currently has a bunch of manuals all the way back
> > > > to
> > > > camel 1.2:
> > > > camel-manual-1.2.0.pdf camel-manual-1.6.0.pdf camel-manual-2.0.0.pdf
> > > > camel-manual-2.5.0.pdf  camel-manual-2.8.4.pdf
> > > > camel-manual-1.3.0.pdf
> > > > camel-manual-1.6.1.pdf  camel-manual-2.2.0.pdf
> > > > camel-manual-2.6.0.pdf
> > > > camel-manual-2.9.0.pdf camel-manual-1.4.0.pdf 
> > > > camel-manual-1.6.3.pdf
> > > > camel-manual-2.3.0.pdf  camel-manual-2.7.0.pdf 
> > > > camel-manual-2.9.1.pdf
> > > > camel-manual-1.5.0.pdf  camel-manual-1.6.4.pdf 
> > > > camel-manual-2.4.0.pdf
> > > > camel-manual-2.8.0.pdf
> > > > 
> > > > Do we really want to keep all of them around on the site?   That
> > > > totals
> > > > 90MB
> > > > of space.   I'm thinking just the 2.8.x+ that we "support", but
> > > > maybe
> > > > even back a little longer.
> > > 
> > > Apache Camel 2.0.0 was released 2,5 years ago. We are in the process
> > > of
> > > removing all old references on our site which refers to  Camel 1.x.y
> > > releases. Because of this, I would keep all manuals starting with
> > > 2.0.0.
> > 
> > I
> > 
> > > would also keep the manual which micro number change (2.9.1) because
> > > we
> > > started to porting back new features some versions ago.
> > 
> > Well, the problem is that the "micro" manuals include newer things as
> > well. For example, the 2.8.4 manual would include stuff that only
> > applies to 2.9.x.   Since it's really a snapshot of the site on the day
> > it's built, as soon as there is stuff changed in confluence that is
> > specific to 2.(x+1), then the manuals for 2.x.y really aren't specific
> > to that branch anymore.
> > 
> > As a concrete example, I think the 2.8.0 manual which really just
> > describes stuff available for all versions of 2.8.x (but may be missing
> > some stuff hta
> > IS in 2.8.4) is better than the 2.8.4 manual which then describes a
> > bunch
> > of
> > things that aren't even available in 2.8.4.
> > 
> > > > 2) Likewise for /maven:
> > > > camel-2.2.0     camel-2.4.0     camel-2.6.0     camel-2.8.0
> > > > camel-2.3.0     camel-2.5.0     camel-2.7.0     camel-2.9.0
> > > > These total 1GB of space.
> > > 
> > > What are the folders for?
> > 
> > Mostly to get the javadocs, I think.  Personally, I'm not sure if there
> > is any value to them at all.
> > 
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > > > 3) Old (deleted) pages: we have 57 html pages on the site right now
> > 
> > that
> > 
> > > > have been deleted from Confluence (or renamed).   The old sync
> > > > process
> > > > didn't remove the HTML pages so we have all these old .html pages
> > > > still
> > > > "live" on the site (although likely not linked to).   I  assume we
> > > > should
> > > > just remove these and not carry them over.
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > > I'm mostly interested in what to do about
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Daniel Kulp
> > > > dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > > > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > 
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com


Mime
View raw message