Open Stack

On 2017-01-23 16:54, Tom Fifield  wrote:
> On 23/01/17 22:07, Tom Fifield wrote:
>> On 23/01/17 22:04, Alexandra Settle wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to know if we have ever discussed appropriately archiving
>>> documentation after EOL date?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom triaged this bug
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/1658659 this morning,
>>> where the reporter noted that Icehouse documentation was not found on
>>> docs.openstack.org. The reporter noted that it was EOL, but was 404ing
>>> and did not redirect to any archive folder.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Normally, I’m not too sure I’d be concerned about documentation as far
>>> back as Icehouse but as Tom notes in the bug, “With 9% of users still
>>> having Icehouse in production as at October 2016, I tend to agree.” The
>>> number of users was something I was unaware of – thank you, Tom.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Did we ever have a process in place to appropriately archive
>>> documentation? Was there a reason we do not archive documentation after
>>> EOL dates?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If we were to archive documentation, I would recommend something similar
>>> to the following:
>>>
>>> 1.       Anything that is EOL’d is converted to a PDF document by the
>>> release team (now we have the functionality to do so).
>>>
>>> 2.       EOL branch is deleted as per normal.
>>>
>>> 3.       Each document is branded with “End of life – cannot be edited”
>>> or something of that nature.
>>>
>>> 4.       Kept in Archive folder on main docs.o.o page.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts? Or is there a piece of history here that I am missing?
>>>
>>
>> Related bug for the general issue:
>>
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/1621685 
> 
> Check this out, it's what Martin Paolo referred to in the above report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

I see:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.9/ref/

but not:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.2/ref/

So, they're not archiving for utopia. Still a nice example.

Above is a single example - that is not complete. I really like to see a
full proposal for all the artefacts we publish on docs.openstack.org
instead of just some bread crumbs,

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
       HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
    GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126