Pablo, the docs are generated into versioned paths, e.g., https://beam.apache.org/documentation/sdks/javadoc/2.5.0/ so tags are not necessary? Also, once apache/beam-site is merged with apache/beam the release branch should have the relevant docs (although perhaps it's better to put them in a different repo or storage system).
Thomas, I would very much like to not have javadoc/pydoc generation be part of the website review process, as it takes up a lot of time when changes are staged (10s of thousands of files), especially when a PR is updated and existing staged files need to be deleted. On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:15 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin <mig...@google.com> wrote: > +1 For removing old documentation. > > @Thomas: Migration work is in backlog and will be picked up in near time. > > --Mikhail > > Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 for removing pre 2.0 documentation (as well as the entries from >> https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/) >> >> Isn't it part of the beam-site changes that we will no longer check in >> generated documentation into the repository? Those can be generated and >> deployed independently (when a commit to a branch occurs), such as done in >> the Apex and Flink projects. >> >> I was told that Scott who was working in the beam-site changes is on >> leave now and the migration is still pending (see note at >> https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/master/website). Is anyone else >> going to pick it up? >> >> Thanks, >> Thomas >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Is it worth adding a tag / branch to the repositories every time we make >>> a release, so that people are able to dive in and find the docs? >>> Best >>> -P. >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:09 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I would guess that users are still using some of these old releases. It >>>> is unclear from Beam website which releases are still supported or not. It >>>> probably makes sense to drop documentation for releases < 2.0. (I would >>>> suggest keeping docs for 2.0). For the future I can work on updating the >>>> Beam website to clarify the state of each release. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The older docs are not directly linked to and are in Github commit >>>>> history. >>>>> >>>>> If there are no objections I'm going to delete javadocs and pydocs for >>>>> releases older than 1 year, >>>>> meaning 2.0.0 and older (going by the dates here >>>>> <https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/>). >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:51 AM Daniel Oliveira < >>>>> danolive...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The older docs should be recorded in the commit history of the >>>>>> website repository, right? If they're not currently used in the website >>>>>> and >>>>>> they're in the commit history then I don't see a reason to save them. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:51 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> I'm writing a PR for apache/beam-site and >>>>>>> beam_PreCommit_Website_Stage is timing out after 100 minutes, because >>>>>>> it's >>>>>>> trying to deletes 22k files and then copy 22k files (warning large >>>>>>> file >>>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Website_Stage/1276/consoleText> >>>>>>> ). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems that we could save a lot of time by deleting the older >>>>>>> javadoc and pydoc files for older versions. Is there a good reason to >>>>>>> keep >>>>>>> around this kind of documentation for older versions (say 1 year back)? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> -- >>> Got feedback? go/pabloem-feedback >>> <https://goto.google.com/pabloem-feedback> >>> >>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
