Looks like we still need one more redirect though. 3.0 docs were served as /doc till now, so this has to go to /doc30… Hmm… I might change the new /doc/ to /docs/ then to avoid redirect confusion.
BTW the site seems to be in process of publishing now: http://cayenne.apache.org/ hopefully will be up shortly. Andrus On Nov 8, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 8, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Aristedes Maniatis <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Today loaded 3.1 javadocs and docbook HTML to the cms site. We have a total >>> of 4 independent books in 3.1 (will probably refactor the whole docbook >>> structure soon to make them easier to manipulate). Manually copying the >>> folders wasn't too bad. The worst part was "git svn dcommit" after a >>> Javadocs dump. But never the less it worked. >>> >>> Notice the new docs structure. I wanted the subfolders to logically follow >>> dropdown menus, so instead of calling it /doc31/, I went with /doc/3_1/ : >>> >>> http://cayenne.staging.apache.org/doc/3_1/index.html >> >> Not sure how changing the path syntax helps. If you really want to do that >> we'll need redirects from all the old simpler URLs to the new structure. >> Remember that people will end up in doc pages from a google search and may >> just change the URL to go to a different version. > > I didn't touch 1.2, 2.0, 3.0 layout. So no need for redirects. I strongly > support the notion that we shouldn't be changing the existing well-publicized > URLs without a cause. And if we do, always provide a 301 redirect (see > "content/.htaccess"). But this is not the case here. > > The new scheme starts with 3.1 release. Among other things the new CMS freed > us from the directory and file naming imposed by Confluence Autoexport, so I > figured the URLs might follow the menu hierarchy for the docs. Also > "unflattening" the top directory structure seems like a good thing for our > own sanity. > >> I also suggest a redirect >> >> /doc/latest/ --> /doc/3.1/ >> >> That makes it easier to refer people to the docs and for the links in >> mailing list archives to remain pointing to the current docs. > > I've been thinking about this for some time. A "latest" symlink is both good > and bad. The positive is that it creates a perception of a single set of > docs. The negative is that we do have multiple versions of the docs after all > and it is not always clear what "latest" means on any given day and > associating "latest" with this moving target is not always such a clear cut. > As Cayenne accumulates more major releases, I feel like using explicit > versioning everywhere will save us and users from more trouble. > > Taking your example, links in mailing list archives would actually work > better with no "latest" symlink. Consider that some docs go away occasionally > (e.g. dataviews are no longer in Cayenne, jpa, etc.). So this example seems > to validate the version-aware URL approach. > >>> Ari, any word on publishing our staging to the live site? >> >> Yes, spoke to infra and created a ticket a few days ago. It is on their list. > > Awesome. > > Andrus >
