<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/01/17 22:07, Tom Fifield wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f328cb07-872a-4059-d09c-666612319a52@openstack.org"
type="cite">On 23/01/17 22:04, Alexandra Settle wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi everyone,
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I would like to know if we have ever discussed appropriately
archiving
<br>
documentation after EOL date?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Tom triaged this bug
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/1658659">https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/1658659</a> this
morning,
<br>
where the reporter noted that Icehouse documentation was not
found on
<br>
docs.openstack.org. The reporter noted that it was EOL, but was
404ing
<br>
and did not redirect to any archive folder.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Normally, I’m not too sure I’d be concerned about documentation
as far
<br>
back as Icehouse but as Tom notes in the bug, “With 9% of users
still
<br>
having Icehouse in production as at October 2016, I tend to
agree.” The
<br>
number of users was something I was unaware of – thank you, Tom.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Did we ever have a process in place to appropriately archive
<br>
documentation? Was there a reason we do not archive
documentation after
<br>
EOL dates?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If we were to archive documentation, I would recommend something
similar
<br>
to the following:
<br>
<br>
1. Anything that is EOL’d is converted to a PDF document
by the
<br>
release team (now we have the functionality to do so).
<br>
<br>
2. EOL branch is deleted as per normal.
<br>
<br>
3. Each document is branded with “End of life – cannot be
edited”
<br>
or something of that nature.
<br>
<br>
4. Kept in Archive folder on main docs.o.o page.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thoughts? Or is there a piece of history here that I am missing?
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Related bug for the general issue:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/1621685">https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/1621685</a>
</blockquote>
<br>
Check this out, it's what Martin Paolo referred to in the above
report:<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:part1.655179C4.38DC850F@openstack.org" alt=""><br>
<br>
<br>
Every page on the django docs has a hover-over listing the version
of the documentation being read. You mouse over it, and you can
choose to navigate back to that specific page for the release you
need - even the old/insecure/unsupported version from 2014. The URLs
are all standard too.<br>
<br>
So, that's best practice. How close can we get?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>