lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Muir <>
Subject Re: Solr 3.6.0 javadocs are missing from the site
Date Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:12:56 GMT
my problem is the unversioned url. with this links break, but in subtle
ways. another horrible example of this is old news blurbs for previous
releases, because they use an unversioned redirect url so they go to the
wrong place. that's why I removed old news blurbs.

these unversioned links should die, die, die. but can we compromise here?
instead can we have api-3 and api-4, etc. we realize some external links
could still break, but given our back compat policy it should be rare...
On Jul 3, 2012 5:58 PM, "Chris Hostetter" <> wrote:

> : > just brought this up on #lucene-dev .. the SOlr 3.6.0 javadocs are
> gone from
> : > the site, and all javadoc URLs were broken as a result
> :
> : they aren't broken: i fixed all these api/ links across the website.
> : where is a broken link?
> Until i added the redirect in .htaccess (so they would start pointing to
> hte 4.0-alpha docs), java URLs like this one (from google, the wiki,
> bookmarks, blogs, etc...) were all broken...
> : > past discussion when we switched to the cms and then released 3.6 was
> that
> : > we would start versioning the solr javadocs just like the lucene-core
> :
> : -1 to the Release Manager doing refactoring on the website. RM does
> : releasing. If people want to refactor things from unversioned to
> : versioned, do that separately please. RM already has enough to do.
> Who the fuck said anything about expecting the RM to refactor the website?
> i didnt expect you to do anything special with the javadocs, just
> upload the new ones (which i know was a big ass fucking pain and i
> appreciate how much time/effort you put into dealing with it) and then
> other people (like me) could volunteer to add markdown pages, fix links,
> etc...
> if it really bothered you that the 3.6.0 javadocs were using the url
> "/solr/api" and you wanted them to be something else that's fine, you
> could have done an "svn mv" at anytime -- that didn't have to be something
> you took it upon yourself to do as the release manager.
> My concerns are/were simply:
> a) the solr 3.6 javadocs should still be online at some path for the
> forseeable future -- just like hte lucene-core 3.6 javadocs are.
> b) we shouldn't break existing URLs -- since the "/solr/api/..."
> URLs have been arround for a long time, and are linked to from lots
> of places, we should do what we can to make sure they always redirect to
> somewhere useful.
> I'm happy to deal with all of this, i'm just asking folks to not delete
> valid and useful docs fro mthe website.  if you don't like the URL/path,
> then move them, but please don't delete them.
> : > javadocs, and have both the latest 3.6.X and 4.X versions on the site
> at
> : > distinct urls -- the goal being that
> : > "" could always redirect to
> the
> : > latest.
> :
> : I don't like that: lucene doesnt need this. why does solr?
> Because the URL has always existed and people use it.  it needs to
> point/redirect somwhere, and it's trivial (by editing .htaccess) for it to
> point to the "most revent" version, so we might as well to that.
> -Hoss
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message