-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 288
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use only real version names, not next
, for doc version subdirectories under /content
#252
Comments
Setting e1-hours and p1-high. I don't think this will take that long to do, but it's important that we make a decision around how we name our upcoming versions moving forward. |
I agree with the proposal that all our doc version subfolders name the version they are targeting. |
Think about this more, an alternative would be to keep |
Note, currently there is no |
Related conversation: |
@spzala et al: I'd like to propose that all our doc version subfolders name the version they are targeting. That is currently the case except for the special
/docs/next
.Some drawbacks of using
/docs/next
as part of permalinks include the following:Let's suppose that we just released v3.5 docs, under the current scheme we'd already have a
/docs/next
even though there are no v3.6.x-DRAFT docs. Under the new scheme we can either, not create v3.6 until we have v3.6 docs, or we can immediately create the branch but mark it as draft and not publish it (until we have actual v3.6 specific changes).Some advantages of using only a version name for doc-version subfolders:
We can, of course, keep
/docs/next
as a virtual path that is redirected to the/a "next" release of the docs.Thoughts?
Related:
Following, #336, we'll need to consider the impact (and possible improvements) to the
Makefile
./cc @nate-double-u
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: