fix/grass version numbers #318
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great. This seems to simplify the release procedure (which now even misses some of the website update steps).
content/learn/manuals.md
Outdated
| <span class="mwl"><a href="/grass80/manuals/index.html " target="_blank"> GRASS GIS 8.0 (current) </a></span> | ||
| <a href="/grass80/manuals/index.html" class="inl btn btn-primary" target="_blank">View HTML</a> <a href="/grass80/manuals/grass-8.0_html_manual.zip" class="inl btn btn-secondary">Download ZIP</a> | ||
| <span class="mwl"><a href="/grass82/manuals/index.html " target="_blank"> GRASS GIS {{< grassVersion version="current" type="short">}} (current) </a></span> | ||
| <a href="/grass82/manuals/index.html" class="inl btn btn-primary" target="_blank">View HTML</a> <a href="/grass82/manuals/grass-8.2_html_manual.zip" class="inl btn btn-secondary">Download ZIP</a> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can the URLs be driven by the variables, too? 8.2 is already there. 82 can be perhaps another variable. There are two there already, so this would be a third one. (Ultimately, it seems to me that the URLs is what needs to be fixed, i.e., there should be 8.2 as elsewhere.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Ultimately, it seems to me that the URLs is what needs to be fixed, i.e., there should be 8.2 as elsewhere.)
While I agree that URLs should be changed to be based on variables as well, I humbly disagree that they should include periods. Myriads of documents refer to GRASS GIS versions without dots, and breaking with the URL style after decades doesn't seem very useful to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@wenzeslaus , I've added the 82 to the variables and used in the links and stuff. Kept them as they were.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Ultimately, it seems to me that the URLs is what needs to be fixed, i.e., there should be 8.2 as elsewhere.)
...Myriads of documents refer to GRASS GIS versions without dots, and breaking with the URL style after decades doesn't seem very useful to me.
Out of scope for this PR, but would that be actually a problem? If they need to be updated, what is the difference between changing from 82 to 83 and changing from 82 to 8.3? If they don't need to be updated, keeping the old URL is enough to keep the old thing working. If you would still need URLs from both the new and old system, there is likely no issue mixing both because you need to specify all numbers explicitly anyway like for the variables in this PR.
10.0 seems more clear than 100. 8.11 is definitively more clear than 811. I think using dots everywhere is more predictable overall because it is consistent for all numbers within one version, while leaving out the dots leads to inconsistent numbers within one version (although being consistent across versions). However, clarity is anyway likely more important than consistency.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Out of scope for this PR, but would that be actually a problem?
Please, let's move this discussion to grass-dev as I would like to hear more voices here. In this repo it is too much hidden.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Out of scope for this PR, but would that be actually a problem? If they need to be updated, what is the difference between changing from
82to83and changing from82to8.3?
I'd agree with Vaclav. Although it can be discussed on -dev ML,
- somebody must make a post there;
- there must be a short deadline to not delay this PR forever.
Apparently the use of `grass-stable/` and `grass-devel/` penalizes the new GRASS GIS 8 versions over G78 in common search engines. Reason may be that they are only redirects which cannot be easily ranked. This PR brings back the GRASS GIS version in the manual URLs (followup to OSGeo#230) and to be considered in OSGeo#318.
Apparently the use of `grass-stable/` and `grass-devel/` penalizes the new GRASS GIS 8 versions over G78 in common search engines. Reason may be that they are only redirects which cannot be easily ranked. This PR brings back the GRASS GIS version in the manual URLs (followup to #230) and to be considered in #318.
|
@nobeeakon Would you mind to also add ? Thanks. |
|
@neteler , had to create a new sitemap.xml file to be able to use the values stored in the data. Not sure how this impacts other stuff or if any additional change would be required for this new xml to be used instead of the other one as it is located in a different place |
|
Mhh, the "donate popup" PR now conflicted with this one... @nobeeakon would you mind to rebase this PR? |
…in multiple places. Updated man pages link
…n static/files/sitemap.xml
|
fixed @neteler |
|
Thanks for the re-sync. Will then this sitemap still exist (pointing to the "sub-sitemaps")? |
Co-authored-by: Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>
|
@neteler , fixed, now the sitemap is located in the same place as before |
|
I suggest to merge this PR! |
I agree, please go ahead :) |
Local file linking of sitemap.xml no longer needed after OSGeo/grass-website#318
|
@nobeeakon Today I enjoyed updating the GRASS GIS version to 8.2.1 on the website by simply editing |
fixes
#315
what
Grass version numbers (current, legacy, preview) passed to
/datafolder so it can be a single source of truth and used in multiple places. Using shortcode so it can be used inside markdown filesUpdated current version man pages links.