On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 14:03 +1100, Andrew Cowie wrote: > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 19:47 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 10:00 +1100, Andrew Cowie wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 22:24 +0100, Tadej Borovšak wrote: > > > > > > > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk3/unstable/gtk-migrating-2-to-3.html > > > > > > Any reason not to have the URLs at .../gtk/3.0/... ? > > > > It's there now. > > Really? Here we get: > > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/3.0/gtk-migrating-2-to-3.html > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/stable/gtk-migrating-2-to-3.html > > 404 > > I just noticed that other /gtk/stable/ URLs point to GTK 2.24; is GTK > 3.0 now not the stable release? Regardless, I still don't understand: > > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/2.24/GtkWindow.html > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/3.0/GtkWindow.html > > What's the parallel filename problem?
My fault. I missed that you asked why it's /gtk3/ instead of just /gtk/. I just answered the bit about /unstable/ instead of /3.0/. Because GTK+ 3.x is parallel-installable with 2.x, every file it installs has to be in a different location. That includes its API reference documentation. And library.gnome.org just uses that information when determining where to plop files on the web server. I can see how this could lead some users to get to the wrong place though. Even with navigation and layout that pushes people towards the 3.0 stack, the URLs are so predictable that it's not unreasonable to expect somebody might just type "/gtk/stable/" into their location bar. Perhaps we could teach library some tricks with versioned libraries. Frederic Peters would know best. -- Shaun _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list