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 > > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
