Re: PATCH: add "current" version link to docs page

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 * the entire current fixture file is kinda outdated wrt the current data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