Hi.
We noticed we'll need the old /install to be available for redirect.
Gerald, can you please put it somewhere under /install-prev, or something
similar?
Thanks,
Martin
On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
> We noticed we'll need the old /install to be available for redirect.
>
> Gerald, can you please put it somewhere under /install-prev, or
> something similar?
I'm afraid I am confused now. Based on your original request I had removed
the original /insta
Hi Gerald,
On 10.11.22 20:24, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
We noticed we'll need the old /install to be available for redirect.
Gerald, can you please put it somewhere under /install-prev, or
something similar?
I'm afraid I am confused now. Based on your orig
On 11/11/22 09:40, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> However, others might have different ideas. Note that this was discussed in
> the thread "Links to web pages are broken."
Yes, please discuss this further in the aforementioned thread.
I do support the Richi's idea about using a new URL for the new Sphin
On 11.11.22 09:50, Martin Liška wrote:
I do support the Richi's idea about using a new URL for the new Sphinx
documentation
while keeping the older Texinfo documentation under /onlinedocs and /install
If we do so and those become then static files: Can we put some
disclaimer at the top of all
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 10:12 AM Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> On 11.11.22 09:50, Martin Liška wrote:
> > I do support the Richi's idea about using a new URL for the new Sphinx
> > documentation
> > while keeping the older Texinfo documentation under /onlinedocs and /install
>
> If we do so and those
On 11/11/22 11:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 10:12 AM Tobias Burnus
> wrote:
>>
>> On 11.11.22 09:50, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> I do support the Richi's idea about using a new URL for the new Sphinx
>>> documentation
>>> while keeping the older Texinfo documentation under /on
Hi Richard,
On 11.11.22 11:18, Richard Bienr wrote:
Note I think we can "remove" the install/ and onlinedocs/ _landing_ pages
(index.html) but we should keep the actual content pages so old links keep
working. We can also replace the landing pages with a pointer to the new
documentation (or pl
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> For /onlinedocs/, I concur that we want to have the old doc there as there are
> many
> deep links. Still, we should consider adding a disclaimer box to all former
> mainline
> documentation stating that this data is no longer updated + point to the new
On 11/12/22 01:06, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
>> For /onlinedocs/, I concur that we want to have the old doc there as there
>> are
>> many
>> deep links. Still, we should consider adding a disclaimer box to all former
>> mainline
>> documentation stating tha
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
> So Gerald, I'm suggesting a new url base gcc.gnu.org/docs that will be
> filled with the new manuals and gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/$man and
> gcc.gnu.org/install locations should point to older (trunk) manuals
> (prev folder at server I guess). Having that
On 11/14/22 02:21, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
>> So Gerald, I'm suggesting a new url base gcc.gnu.org/docs that will be
>> filled with the new manuals and gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/$man and
>> gcc.gnu.org/install locations should point to older (trunk) manuals
12 matches
Mail list logo
