Re: Release Notes Archive Patch - Mailing list pgsql-www
From | Jonathan S. Katz |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Release Notes Archive Patch |
Date | |
Msg-id | 5ab20e2d-f291-51db-6761-07daeed5a87a@postgresql.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Release Notes Archive Patch (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Responses |
Re: Release Notes Archive Patch
(Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Release Notes Archive Patch (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
List | pgsql-www |
On 2/13/19 11:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes: >> On 2/13/19 10:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> The patch doesn't convey a lot to my mind, so I have to ask: exactly >>> what URLs would this present? > >> I'm a bit confuse by the question, so I'll answer it from two angles. > > Neither of those are quite what I meant. As I understood Andres' > complaint, it was that right now we have URLs like > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/release-9-6-5.html > > but those are going to be 404 beginning tomorrow. It sounds from your > response like this patch isn't meant to restore those cross-version URLs. > Which is fine by me, really, but we might get pushback about it. If so, > there might be material for follow-on work to redirect those into this > new set of URLs Thanks for clarifying! So, in anticipation of push back, I also want to provide some stats. I looked at overall traffic since Jul 1, 2018 to yesterday. Traffic to any of the release notes in general was a very small chunk of it (< 0.5%). When just looking at the subset of release notes, the top 5 receivers were: 1. 11.0 2. 10.5 3. 10.4 4. "current/static/release.html" 5. 9.6 release index This constituted a little over 35% of the overall release note traffic. My inferences are that people tend to go to the release notes for the "latest" release. Now, in terms of things like "/docs/9.5/9-4-19.html" and the like, the only one that had significant traffic was /docs/9.6/static/release-9-5.html, and that was #25 on the list (the notes coming before it accounting for 60%+ of the traffic). In fact, I did not see another of the "mismatch" URLs until #37 on the list, which was /docs/10/static/release-9-5.html From a user experience perspective, does it stink that we're potentially creating a bunch of 404s? Yes. Is it going to upset some people? Yes, and I'm sympathetic to that. However, looking at the overall numbers, I think we'll be ok, even if we don't have the redirects per Magnus' suggestion downthread (which I will also reply to). > >> WRT loading the release notes themselves, basically it is using the data >> found in the current doc imports. Often in the release notes, there are >> URLs either to older release notes (like in the top line) or various >> features/sections of the documentation (e.g. a GUC, a SQL command, etc.) > > Right. The latter type will link to the main docs for the associated > release, correct? Correct. Thanks, Jonathan