> On 18 Jun 2018, at 15:06, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If we were to export PDFs of documentation at a certain version than I
> would agree with this.
> Currently my feeling is that we are deleting information and not all our
> users are on LTS or recent versions.
Yes but we have to decide between:
* Make it simpler and nicer for new users coming in and on versions that
xwiki.org supports
* Make is less nice for new users but nicer for old users using not supported
versions of XWiki
So far we’ve decided to not keeping the documentation for old versions of
XWiki, see https://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Support#HSupportedVersions
which says "You won't find documentation for old versions on this web site”.
> I agree is important to have the most simple and clear documentation, yet
> it's bad that we don't provide versioned documentation.
>
> Also, even cleaning now, it's a task that is very big and the info will get
> deprecated in a year. If the language we use is using present tense, users
> will still be confused 1 year later and still would not know about what
> version that documentation is talking about. Especially since there is no
> way we could validate documentation on year release.
>
> I don't have a clear solution for this problem.
Me neither and I don’t think there’s a magical solution :)
Note that now that we’ve removed the platform and enterprise wikis and moved
the main doc under https://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Documentation/ it’s
slightly easier to copy the documentation: we would need to copy this space
when we do a release. Note that e.x.o would need to be handled too.
But that’s just the technical aspect.
In practice it’s a LOT of work to handle several versions as ElasticSearch is
doing: https://www.elastic.co/guide/index.html
The work I can imagine:
* Whenever adding something new, need to decide in which doc version it goes.
And right now we don’t have merge support in XWiki so it would need to be by
hand
* When we do refactorings (so on the latest doc), and we need to merge to LTS
or Stable we need to find the old place where it was
In any case it would take substantial more time to handle multiple versions
(not even mentioning multiple languages ;)). And I don’t think we have a large
enough participating community to allow for this….
<aside>
If you remember Caty, at some point, we discussed about implementing an app for
doing this. In short it would be similar to the Release Notes app where you can
add a new release change item (here it would be a new Doc item) and when you do
so, you also enter info in the xproperty corresponding to the versions that
apply to the doc item. Ofc you also enter the Category/Subcategories (or tags),
etc.
Then you can browse a Categories/Tags, say “Installation” and “MySQL” and an
XWik version (defaults to latest) and you’ll have a nice LT with all the doc
items corresponding to that.
Ofc there are problems with this, for ex:
* coherent doc
* you must have one item doc per heading (to be fined-grained enough, works
less well for tutorials types of documents)
</aside>
Thanks
-Vincent
> Thanks,
> Caty
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Sure, make sense.
>>
>> I guess most document useless in >=LTS should be removed. Unless the
>> documentation is designed to give the version information of for
>> changelog stuff.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think we need to start removing old mentions on xwiki.org. It makes
>> it harder to read xwiki pages (as a user has just reported, see
>> https://forum.xwiki.org/t/how-to-increase-active-installs-
>> of-xwiki/3132/6?u=vmassol).
>>>
>>> Also we said we don't support documenting old stuff (we only support doc
>> for LTS, stable and latest).
>>>
>>> For example I just did this:
>>> http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Documentation/
>> AdminGuide/Installation/InstallationConcludingSteps/?
>> viewer=changes&rev1=11.2&rev2=11.3
>>>
>>> Is that ok with everyone?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Mortagne
>>
