There is no disk space. But when you checkout the git repo checkout w branch takes a while. And I think that will only get worse overtime.
I don’t think it’s needed to keep all alive versions on the doc considering you can have it as part of the download. On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:37 PM Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: > Is the site running into disk space limitations? I considered paring the > documentation down during the migration, but I didn't have any real > problems dealing with it. Also, I figured that since disk space is and > bandwidth are so cheap it really wasn't an issue. I think it's more > convenient to have the docs on the website, but like you said the docs are > in the distribution as well so it's not terribly hard to get them > regardless. I'm +0 on this. > > > Justin > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:19 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected] > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 < > [email protected]> > > 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 > > > -- Clebert Suconic
