Re: PATCH: add "current" version link to docs page - Mailing list pgsql-www
From | Amir Rohan |
---|---|
Subject | Re: PATCH: add "current" version link to docs page |
Date | |
Msg-id | 563A8233.2000102@zoho.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: PATCH: add "current" version link to docs page (Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>) |
List | pgsql-www |
On 11/04/2015 11:19 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > On 11/04/2015 10:06 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >> On 11/04/2015 09:17 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >>> On 10/21/2015 06:45 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >>>> On 10/21/2015 05:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>>> Amir Rohan wrote: >>>>>> On 10/05/2015 01:57 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >>>>>>> I previously suggested this could help SEO: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560614CA.1080304@mail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There wasn't much of a reaction but hopefully actually providing >>>>>>> the patch might make the difference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You'll now see something like: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 9.2 / 9.3 / current (9.4) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> at the top of the page, with "current" linking /docs/current >>>>>>> and "9.4" linking /docs/9.4. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For SEO purposes I think it would actually be better to elide >>>>>>> the numbered-version altogether, so people will have to do extra work >>>>>>> *not* to link to /docs/current/, but I figured that would turn into >>>>>>> a bikeshed, so this less intrusive version is what I'm sending. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bump. There's been no response to this, does the silence imply rejection >>>>>> or just very low priority? >>>>> >>>>> I think this is a good idea, and obviously so does Dave. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'll bump periodically until it goes live or someone tells me to stop... >>> >>> Sorry for this taking so long - but I now have applied PATCH 2/2, I >>> didnt bother applying the fixtures one due to multiple issues (some >>> preexisting): >>> >>> * added hunk in the patch clearly was confused about 9.0 vs 8.0 >>> * random whitespace added to some lines >>> * the entire current fixture file is kinda outdated wrt the current data >>> model and needs much bigger rejiggering... >>> >>> >>> thanks for the patch! >>> >>> >>> Stefan >>> >> >> Just to set things straight: >> >> - The trailing space wasn't added, it was copy-pasted from the rest of >> the file which has it everywhere. > > heh - doesnt make it any better :) > Well hopefully you either enforce coding style consistently, or you don't. which is it? :) >> >> - I wasn't confused about 8.0 vs. 9.0, the fixture is simply *that* old. >> It doesn't matter if the data is "correct" (and it won't be, in a year >> or 5), but it needs datums that cover the data model or you can't test >> your changes. > > well citing a part of the diff: > ... > "tree" -> "9.0" and "relnotes" -> "release.html#RELEASE-8-0-21 (as well > as "latestminor" -> "21" feel completely wrong in that combination :) > The documentation isn't there when you bootstrap the environment anyway, and latestminor isn't used anywhere in the UI that I've seen, but yes, that's wrong. The problem I did find a hinderance was all the missing fields / value choices which made for blank template renderings. >> >> Guess why I was apprehensive about asking for an update and waiting for >> someone to find the time. :) >> >> - Yes, the whole fixture file is really hopelessly out of date and >> useless for testing, so If you're going to update it with live data >> , great, but if not please reconsider the patch - I spent about as much >> time fixing things so I could test my (trivial) change as the change itself. > > I'm actually working on a more complete fix to the fixture file now... > Glad to hear it! Not to jump over you or anything, but the other webapp is in pretty good shape wrt to getting started (self-contained doc, clear bootstrap procedure...), ifyou get a chance to bring this one up to par while you're at it, I would have thanked you a month ago. If you'll pardon my tense-mixing subjunctive. Amir