On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:10:49AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Tony Breeds's message of 2017-08-03 12:20:24 +1000:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:05:16PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >
> > > That content will now live in the project trees. Perhaps part of marking
> > > branches i
Excerpts from Tony Breeds's message of 2017-08-03 12:20:24 +1000:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:05:16PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> > That content will now live in the project trees. Perhaps part of marking
> > branches in those repos EOL needs to include deleting the install tree
> > from the
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:05:16PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> That content will now live in the project trees. Perhaps part of marking
> branches in those repos EOL needs to include deleting the install tree
> from the docs? Now that the docs are in a standard location, that could
> be part of
Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2017-07-31 10:02:19 -0400:
> Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2017-07-27 19:10:32 -0400:
> > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2017-07-27 19:05:16 -0400:
> > > Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-07-27 22:07:33 +:
> > > > On 201
Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2017-07-27 19:10:32 -0400:
> Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2017-07-27 19:05:16 -0400:
> > Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-07-27 22:07:33 +:
> > > On 2017-07-27 15:40:22 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Are
+2
I am in support of this approach. It is clear that people are still
looking for content from older releases long after it has been released
but making it clearer that it is an EOL release is an improvement.
Jay
On 7/28/2017 4:38 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 2017-
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 07:39:25PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-07-28 15:32:01 -0400 (-0400), David Desrosiers wrote:
> [...]
> > I am very opposed to removing subsets of docs, including the install guide,
> > after the release goes eol upstream from consumers for exactly that reason.
> >
On 2017-07-28 15:37:07 -0400 (-0400), David Desrosiers wrote:
[...]
> You could compress the individual files, configure the webserver to send
> the correct encoding (Content-Encoding: gzip or deflate) to the client
> (assuming their browser sends the correct Accept-Encoding header) which can
> the
Maybe we could just ban search engines from indexing the releases using
robots.txt once they go EOL. That would solve the problem of losing old
information for people that still need it while preventing people stumbling
onto old docs when they search for something.
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:39 PM
On 2017-07-28 15:32:01 -0400 (-0400), David Desrosiers wrote:
[...]
> I am very opposed to removing subsets of docs, including the install guide,
> after the release goes eol upstream from consumers for exactly that reason.
>
> Watermarking the upstream docs with series and version should reduce o
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Sean McGinnis
wrote:
> I like this approach. With the size being manageable (large, but
> manageable), I would prefer we leave it until we need to free up
> some of the space
You could compress the individual files, configure the webserver to send
the correct en
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> The current solution of not publishing installation guides for EOL
> releases seems like a
> good enough compromise there to me.
>
This then breaks fidelity for those operators who need to either reinstall
their existing environment, which
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-07-28 13:23:32 +:
> On 2017-07-28 08:34:18 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> > I wasn't able to come up with a way to disable the link without
> > triggering a new build. I didn't want us to have to land a patch in each
> > repo as part
On 2017-07-28 08:34:18 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
> I wasn't able to come up with a way to disable the link without
> triggering a new build. I didn't want us to have to land a patch in each
> repo as part of marking it EOL, but if we're going to do that to remove
> the installation
Excerpts from Dmitry Tantsur's message of 2017-07-28 12:29:29 +0200:
> On 07/28/2017 09:12 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > On 2017-07-27 21:40, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Please encourage everyone there to explore options that require the
> >> least amount of effort. An ideal solution is on
Excerpts from Andreas Jaeger's message of 2017-07-28 09:12:59 +0200:
> On 2017-07-27 21:40, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > [...]
> > Please encourage everyone there to explore options that require the
> > least amount of effort. An ideal solution is one we can implement
> > without heroic efforts or havi
On 07/28/2017 09:12 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 2017-07-27 21:40, Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
Please encourage everyone there to explore options that require the
least amount of effort. An ideal solution is one we can implement
without heroic efforts or having to recruit an army of contributors.
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 2017-07-27 21:40, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> [...]
>> Please encourage everyone there to explore options that require the
>> least amount of effort. An ideal solution is one we can implement
>> without heroic efforts or having to recruit an army of contributors.
>
> I agree
On 2017-07-27 21:40, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> Please encourage everyone there to explore options that require the
> least amount of effort. An ideal solution is one we can implement
> without heroic efforts or having to recruit an army of contributors.
I agree with the points made in general
On 2017-07-27 21:40, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> Regarding point 2, if we don't have the space to host the content
> indefinitely, then we need to set a fixed, but longer, retention
> period before deleting it. Several years, at least. In the mean
> time, we could delete builds for intermediate
On 2017-07-28 01:10, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2017-07-27 19:05:16 -0400:
>> Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-07-27 22:07:33 +:
>>> On 2017-07-27 15:40:22 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> [...]
Are we over-emphasizing the scale of
[snip]
>
> My proposal is to put the documentation on docs.openstack.org and
> leave it there indefinitely.
>
I like this approach. With the size being manageable (large, but
manageable), I would prefer we leave it until we need to free up
some of the space.
So until that time, no action is req
Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2017-07-27 19:05:16 -0400:
> Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-07-27 22:07:33 +:
> > On 2017-07-27 15:40:22 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Are we over-emphasizing the scale of the discovery problem?
> > >
> > > When I s
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-07-27 21:56:35 +:
> On 2017-07-27 15:40:22 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> > Regarding point 2, if we don't have the space to host the content
> > indefinitely, then we need to set a fixed, but longer, retention
> > period before dele
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-07-27 22:07:33 +:
> On 2017-07-27 15:40:22 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> > Are we over-emphasizing the scale of the discovery problem?
> >
> > When I search for how to install a package on Ubuntu (or Red Hat
> > or Debian for that
On 2017-07-27 15:40:22 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
> Are we over-emphasizing the scale of the discovery problem?
>
> When I search for how to install a package on Ubuntu (or Red Hat
> or Debian for that matter), I find all sorts of references all over
> the web (including on the site
On 2017-07-27 15:40:22 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
> Regarding point 2, if we don't have the space to host the content
> indefinitely, then we need to set a fixed, but longer, retention
> period before deleting it. Several years, at least. In the mean
> time, we could delete builds f
[Moving a thread from the openstack-docs list [1] to this list for
broader input.]
[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2017-July/010069.html
Excerpts from 's message of 2017-07-26 07:42:38 -0400:
> Yesterday was a very busy day on IRC, with the discussion about the
> strategy
28 matches
Mail list logo
