David Crossley wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > > Dave Brondsema wrote: > > > > > > /docs/dev/ nested below /docs/ seems weird. I think it would be better > > > to host the current stable release at a url like: /docs/0.7/. This > > > would also permit us to keep documentation for all old releases > > > (although we would probably want warnings on them if they are too old). > > > > > > 0.6 docs had to be kept at /docs/ because they didn't have a split > > > docs/site structure so I kept it as-is. I had been thinking we'd move > > > to something like /docs/0.7/ for future releases, but I can't find any > > > discussion about this in particular. > > > > We probably jumped to the conclusion that we only would have > > the current release and the current dev version. > > > > I agree with this new approach. So would it be like this ... > > > > Assuming that we don't want to version the top-level docs. > > Is that a legitimate assumption? It would change our layout if we do. > I don't know the answer yet either. > > > f.a.o/ ... the top-level docs, from trunk/site-author > > f.a.o/docs/ ... is .htaccess to redirect to current release docs. > > f.a.o/docs/0.6/ ... from the forrest_06_branch (*) > > f.a.o/docs/0.7/ ... from the forrest_07_branch, when it is released > > f.a.o/docs/0.8/ ... the next development, from future trunk/docs-author/
Let us see what the other solution would be. (Say that "current release" is 0.7) f.a.o/ ... the top-level docs, .htaccess to redirect to 0.7 top-level f.a.o/docs/ ... .htaccess to redirect to 0.7/docs/ f.a.o/0.6/ ... from the forrest_06_branch f.a.o/0.6/docs/ ... from the forrest_06_branch f.a.o/0.7/ ... from the forrest_07_branch/site-author/ f.a.o/0.7/docs/ ... from the forrest_07_branch/docs-author/ f.a.o/0.8/ ... the next development, from the trunk/site-author/ f.a.o/0.8/docs/ ... from the trunk/docs-author/ The question really is whether we need to keep separate versions on-line of the top-level docs. I hope not, but we need to be sure. We should investigate which docs would change enough to warrant that: * some instructions on index.html * who.html * license.html as it will change some time in the future * the list of open issues * ??? any more? The download page could cause issues if there we multiple versions of it. > > Actually we should be able to establish this prior to the 0.7 release. > > > > [*] the 0.6 stuff will have some inconsistencies, which we can > > fix in its branch, such as faq.html was one level up. > > > > The missing piece is that we need to clearly denote the version number > > on all docs. We should be able to do something rough-and-ready > > to get us by. > > That is fixed now. We can put a panel on the page and > text after the html tile. I presume that we would also direct robots to only index the last three releases. --David
