On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just a quick question, does the web site still have the kits of the old > version of Camel? > > I don't think we need to keep the old version of maven artifacts. If the > people need to find the old version of camel java doc, he could download it > from central maven. >
Yeah can we not put the old manuals in the ASF archives? http://archive.apache.org/dist/camel/apache-camel/ Currently its the binaries of the Camel kit that is there, but maybe we can get the -manual.pdf files as well? Then we can just keep the latest 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9 manuals at the website, and then refer people to the archives for the older manuals. > > On 3/13/12 5:03 AM, Daniel Kulp 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 >>>> dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > > > -- > Willem > ---------------------------------- > FuseSource > Web: http://www.fusesource.com > Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English) > http://jnn.javaeye.com (Chinese) > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: willemjiang -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- FuseSource Email: cib...@fusesource.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
