Graham Percival wrote:
> True, although it would be simple to have
> doc/stable/
> doc/devel/
> doc/archive/
That's better.
> Oh, we'll keep the stable docs. I just don't think the
> old *unstable* docs are worth having online.
Is it really such a burden to keep the old docs on the
lilypond.org server? Why the desire to remove them? It's
really not a huge thing to me, so I don't want to argue too
much about it. Just curious.
Also, I looked at the new robots.txt and I have one comment.
These lines are all unnecessary (redundant):
Disallow: /doc/v2.0/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/source
Disallow: /doc/v2.0/Documentation/user/out-www/source
Disallow: /doc/v2.2/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/source
Disallow: /doc/v2.2/Documentation/user/out-www/source
Disallow: /doc/v2.4/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/source
Disallow: /doc/v2.4/Documentation/user/out-www/source
Disallow: /doc/v2.5/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/source
Disallow: /doc/v2.5/Documentation/user/out-www/source
Disallow: /doc/v2.5/Documentation/user/out-www/music-glossary/source
...as long as the following lines are there:
Disallow: /doc/v2.0/
Disallow: /doc/v2.2/
Disallow: /doc/v2.4/
Disallow: /doc/v2.5/
- Mark
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
