[DISCUSS] Artemis Documentation for older releases on WebSite

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] Artemis Documentation for older releases on WebSite

clebertsuconic
Do we still need to provide documentation for older releases?
A big portion of the size now on the website is due to older releases.


I believe we should stop doing that, after all if you go to the
archive on previous releases, the binary will include documentations.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Documentation for older releases on WebSite

Robbie Gemmell
I think trimming older release doc content to keep the site managable
is reasonable, and there are various approaches that could be used to
trim things. Over at Qpid we tend to trim down to the last 2 years or
so of release docs every now and then (its overdue currently, carrying
just over 3). If taking an approach like that, as example there would
clearly be old Artemis docs that could be removed. Another approach
might be, removing even more docs for version streams not considered
the current for some time, e.g maybe now all the 1.x Artemis docs
could go except the latest 1.5.6 release.

Looking at the size and content of the release docs themselves is
perhaps also important. Having a peek at whats there currently for the
refreshed ActiveMQ site, I see the 5.x javadocs are using about 400MB
per release, but over half of it looks to be for source html. If so, I
think thats of limited value personally, with IDEs often pulling
source(+javadoc) jars directly and browsers having various web UI
options such as GitHub etc to utilise. Thats >200MB per release I
think we could perhaps remove and substitute with a link to the
release tag.

Robbie

On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 22:25, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Do we still need to provide documentation for older releases?
> A big portion of the size now on the website is due to older releases.
>
>
> I believe we should stop doing that, after all if you go to the
> archive on previous releases, the binary will include documentations.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Documentation for older releases on WebSite

clebertsuconic
I'm thinking about just keeping the _latest, as the download package
also includes the entire documentation.

Someone willing to use the old version would be able to look at the
specific version.. or even github/docs.

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:44 AM Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I think trimming older release doc content to keep the site managable
> is reasonable, and there are various approaches that could be used to
> trim things. Over at Qpid we tend to trim down to the last 2 years or
> so of release docs every now and then (its overdue currently, carrying
> just over 3). If taking an approach like that, as example there would
> clearly be old Artemis docs that could be removed. Another approach
> might be, removing even more docs for version streams not considered
> the current for some time, e.g maybe now all the 1.x Artemis docs
> could go except the latest 1.5.6 release.
>
> Looking at the size and content of the release docs themselves is
> perhaps also important. Having a peek at whats there currently for the
> refreshed ActiveMQ site, I see the 5.x javadocs are using about 400MB
> per release, but over half of it looks to be for source html. If so, I
> think thats of limited value personally, with IDEs often pulling
> source(+javadoc) jars directly and browsers having various web UI
> options such as GitHub etc to utilise. Thats >200MB per release I
> think we could perhaps remove and substitute with a link to the
> release tag.
>
> Robbie
>
> On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 22:25, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Do we still need to provide documentation for older releases?
> > A big portion of the size now on the website is due to older releases.
> >
> >
> > I believe we should stop doing that, after all if you go to the
> > archive on previous releases, the binary will include documentations.



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Documentation for older releases on WebSite

jbertram
Is the site running into disk space limitations? I considered paring the
documentation down during the migration, but I didn't have any real
problems dealing with it. Also, I figured that since disk space is and
bandwidth are so cheap it really wasn't an issue. I think it's more
convenient to have the docs on the website, but like you said the docs are
in the distribution as well so it's not terribly hard to get them
regardless. I'm +0 on this.


Justin

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:19 PM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I'm thinking about just keeping the _latest, as the download package
> also includes the entire documentation.
>
> Someone willing to use the old version would be able to look at the
> specific version.. or even github/docs.
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:44 AM Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think trimming older release doc content to keep the site managable
> > is reasonable, and there are various approaches that could be used to
> > trim things. Over at Qpid we tend to trim down to the last 2 years or
> > so of release docs every now and then (its overdue currently, carrying
> > just over 3). If taking an approach like that, as example there would
> > clearly be old Artemis docs that could be removed. Another approach
> > might be, removing even more docs for version streams not considered
> > the current for some time, e.g maybe now all the 1.x Artemis docs
> > could go except the latest 1.5.6 release.
> >
> > Looking at the size and content of the release docs themselves is
> > perhaps also important. Having a peek at whats there currently for the
> > refreshed ActiveMQ site, I see the 5.x javadocs are using about 400MB
> > per release, but over half of it looks to be for source html. If so, I
> > think thats of limited value personally, with IDEs often pulling
> > source(+javadoc) jars directly and browsers having various web UI
> > options such as GitHub etc to utilise. Thats >200MB per release I
> > think we could perhaps remove and substitute with a link to the
> > release tag.
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> > On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 22:25, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do we still need to provide documentation for older releases?
> > > A big portion of the size now on the website is due to older releases.
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe we should stop doing that, after all if you go to the
> > > archive on previous releases, the binary will include documentations.
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Documentation for older releases on WebSite

clebertsuconic
There is no disk space.  But when you checkout the git repo checkout w
branch takes a while. And I think that will only get worse overtime.

I don’t think it’s needed to keep all alive versions on the doc considering
you can have it as part of the download.

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:37 PM Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Is the site running into disk space limitations? I considered paring the
> documentation down during the migration, but I didn't have any real
> problems dealing with it. Also, I figured that since disk space is and
> bandwidth are so cheap it really wasn't an issue. I think it's more
> convenient to have the docs on the website, but like you said the docs are
> in the distribution as well so it's not terribly hard to get them
> regardless. I'm +0 on this.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:19 PM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking about just keeping the _latest, as the download package
> > also includes the entire documentation.
> >
> > Someone willing to use the old version would be able to look at the
> > specific version.. or even github/docs.
> >
> > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:44 AM Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think trimming older release doc content to keep the site managable
> > > is reasonable, and there are various approaches that could be used to
> > > trim things. Over at Qpid we tend to trim down to the last 2 years or
> > > so of release docs every now and then (its overdue currently, carrying
> > > just over 3). If taking an approach like that, as example there would
> > > clearly be old Artemis docs that could be removed. Another approach
> > > might be, removing even more docs for version streams not considered
> > > the current for some time, e.g maybe now all the 1.x Artemis docs
> > > could go except the latest 1.5.6 release.
> > >
> > > Looking at the size and content of the release docs themselves is
> > > perhaps also important. Having a peek at whats there currently for the
> > > refreshed ActiveMQ site, I see the 5.x javadocs are using about 400MB
> > > per release, but over half of it looks to be for source html. If so, I
> > > think thats of limited value personally, with IDEs often pulling
> > > source(+javadoc) jars directly and browsers having various web UI
> > > options such as GitHub etc to utilise. Thats >200MB per release I
> > > think we could perhaps remove and substitute with a link to the
> > > release tag.
> > >
> > > Robbie
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 22:25, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do we still need to provide documentation for older releases?
> > > > A big portion of the size now on the website is due to older
> releases.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe we should stop doing that, after all if you go to the
> > > > archive on previous releases, the binary will include documentations.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Documentation for older releases on WebSite

clebertsuconic
I meant.  There is no disk space *issue* but you probably figure out what I
meant.


It’s just that takes a while for a checkout.  And I believe the older
versions make a big contribution to that and that tends to aggravate over
time.

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:19 PM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> There is no disk space.  But when you checkout the git repo checkout w
> branch takes a while. And I think that will only get worse overtime.
>
> I don’t think it’s needed to keep all alive versions on the doc
> considering you can have it as part of the download.
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:37 PM Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Is the site running into disk space limitations? I considered paring the
>> documentation down during the migration, but I didn't have any real
>> problems dealing with it. Also, I figured that since disk space is and
>> bandwidth are so cheap it really wasn't an issue. I think it's more
>> convenient to have the docs on the website, but like you said the docs are
>> in the distribution as well so it's not terribly hard to get them
>> regardless. I'm +0 on this.
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:19 PM Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm thinking about just keeping the _latest, as the download package
>> > also includes the entire documentation.
>> >
>> > Someone willing to use the old version would be able to look at the
>> > specific version.. or even github/docs.
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:44 AM Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I think trimming older release doc content to keep the site managable
>> > > is reasonable, and there are various approaches that could be used to
>> > > trim things. Over at Qpid we tend to trim down to the last 2 years or
>> > > so of release docs every now and then (its overdue currently, carrying
>> > > just over 3). If taking an approach like that, as example there would
>> > > clearly be old Artemis docs that could be removed. Another approach
>> > > might be, removing even more docs for version streams not considered
>> > > the current for some time, e.g maybe now all the 1.x Artemis docs
>> > > could go except the latest 1.5.6 release.
>> > >
>> > > Looking at the size and content of the release docs themselves is
>> > > perhaps also important. Having a peek at whats there currently for the
>> > > refreshed ActiveMQ site, I see the 5.x javadocs are using about 400MB
>> > > per release, but over half of it looks to be for source html. If so, I
>> > > think thats of limited value personally, with IDEs often pulling
>> > > source(+javadoc) jars directly and browsers having various web UI
>> > > options such as GitHub etc to utilise. Thats >200MB per release I
>> > > think we could perhaps remove and substitute with a link to the
>> > > release tag.
>> > >
>> > > Robbie
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 22:25, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Do we still need to provide documentation for older releases?
>> > > > A big portion of the size now on the website is due to older
>> releases.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I believe we should stop doing that, after all if you go to the
>> > > > archive on previous releases, the binary will include
>> documentations.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>> >
>>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Documentation for older releases on WebSite

Robbie Gemmell
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
Thats definitely true, and why in the end I dont have a problem
removing older releases content from the site. I do think having some
period of release docs available on the site can be good though, as
its easier for ourselves to point folks to relevant version-specific
doc details if they are on the site, and regrettably many folks tend
not to be on the current version.

On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 18:19, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I'm thinking about just keeping the _latest, as the download package
> also includes the entire documentation.
>
> Someone willing to use the old version would be able to look at the
> specific version.. or even github/docs.
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:44 AM Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I think trimming older release doc content to keep the site managable
> > is reasonable, and there are various approaches that could be used to
> > trim things. Over at Qpid we tend to trim down to the last 2 years or
> > so of release docs every now and then (its overdue currently, carrying
> > just over 3). If taking an approach like that, as example there would
> > clearly be old Artemis docs that could be removed. Another approach
> > might be, removing even more docs for version streams not considered
> > the current for some time, e.g maybe now all the 1.x Artemis docs
> > could go except the latest 1.5.6 release.
> >
> > Looking at the size and content of the release docs themselves is
> > perhaps also important. Having a peek at whats there currently for the
> > refreshed ActiveMQ site, I see the 5.x javadocs are using about 400MB
> > per release, but over half of it looks to be for source html. If so, I
> > think thats of limited value personally, with IDEs often pulling
> > source(+javadoc) jars directly and browsers having various web UI
> > options such as GitHub etc to utilise. Thats >200MB per release I
> > think we could perhaps remove and substitute with a link to the
> > release tag.
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> > On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 22:25, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do we still need to provide documentation for older releases?
> > > A big portion of the size now on the website is due to older releases.
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe we should stop doing that, after all if you go to the
> > > archive on previous releases, the binary will include documentations.
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Documentation for older releases on WebSite

Robbie Gemmell
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
It does add up, and so I'd say cleaning out older bits periodically is
a good idea. Less of an issue on git as it was on svn though.

The Artemis docs are fairly light in terms of file count and size
compared to the apidocs added for the 5.x releases, as earlier over
half that could be trimmed in my opinion without really affecting
things. I think cleaning out the oldest docs is a good idea either way
though.

The fact the source and generated content are on different branches
also makes the sheer volume of files much more noticable, as it also
takes a wee moment to swap between branches while doing the updates.
We keep both src+output on the asf-site branch for Qpid, so thats an
issue I've not noticed with manipulating the vast number of files
before, though its a relatively small issue (so long as you have an
SSD I guess :P)

Robbie

On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 20:40, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I meant.  There is no disk space *issue* but you probably figure out what I
> meant.
>
>
> It’s just that takes a while for a checkout.  And I believe the older
> versions make a big contribution to that and that tends to aggravate over
> time.
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:19 PM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > There is no disk space.  But when you checkout the git repo checkout w
> > branch takes a while. And I think that will only get worse overtime.
> >
> > I don’t think it’s needed to keep all alive versions on the doc
> > considering you can have it as part of the download.
> >
> > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:37 PM Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Is the site running into disk space limitations? I considered paring the
> >> documentation down during the migration, but I didn't have any real
> >> problems dealing with it. Also, I figured that since disk space is and
> >> bandwidth are so cheap it really wasn't an issue. I think it's more
> >> convenient to have the docs on the website, but like you said the docs are
> >> in the distribution as well so it's not terribly hard to get them
> >> regardless. I'm +0 on this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Justin
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:19 PM Clebert Suconic <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm thinking about just keeping the _latest, as the download package
> >> > also includes the entire documentation.
> >> >
> >> > Someone willing to use the old version would be able to look at the
> >> > specific version.. or even github/docs.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:44 AM Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I think trimming older release doc content to keep the site managable
> >> > > is reasonable, and there are various approaches that could be used to
> >> > > trim things. Over at Qpid we tend to trim down to the last 2 years or
> >> > > so of release docs every now and then (its overdue currently, carrying
> >> > > just over 3). If taking an approach like that, as example there would
> >> > > clearly be old Artemis docs that could be removed. Another approach
> >> > > might be, removing even more docs for version streams not considered
> >> > > the current for some time, e.g maybe now all the 1.x Artemis docs
> >> > > could go except the latest 1.5.6 release.
> >> > >
> >> > > Looking at the size and content of the release docs themselves is
> >> > > perhaps also important. Having a peek at whats there currently for the
> >> > > refreshed ActiveMQ site, I see the 5.x javadocs are using about 400MB
> >> > > per release, but over half of it looks to be for source html. If so, I
> >> > > think thats of limited value personally, with IDEs often pulling
> >> > > source(+javadoc) jars directly and browsers having various web UI
> >> > > options such as GitHub etc to utilise. Thats >200MB per release I
> >> > > think we could perhaps remove and substitute with a link to the
> >> > > release tag.
> >> > >
> >> > > Robbie
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 22:25, Clebert Suconic <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Do we still need to provide documentation for older releases?
> >> > > > A big portion of the size now on the website is due to older
> >> releases.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I believe we should stop doing that, after all if you go to the
> >> > > > archive on previous releases, the binary will include
> >> documentations.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Clebert Suconic
> >> >
> >>
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic