On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 13:11:10 -0500, Carl Marcum wrote: Comments inline > Hi Peter, > > On 12/19/20 12:09 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: >> >> On 19.12.20 14:38, Carl Marcum wrote: >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>> On 12/19/20 8:13 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote: >>>> Hello Peter, >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 01:30:21AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> do we still need the documentation description for: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html >>>>> >>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html >>>>> >>>>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide >>>> I read quickly through them and vote for: no, please let us get rid >>>> of them. >>>> >>>>> I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search >>>>> results on duck duck go. >>>>> >>>>> And then you click through the history. >>>>> >>>>> My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build >>>> This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get >>>> rid of those pages as quickly as possible. >>>> >>>> Or, better, have them redirect straight to >>>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO so >>>> that who clicks on the outdated links is redirected to the more up to >>>> date documentation. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>> I hate running into old cruft on the wiki also. However.. >>> >>> I think it comes down to keeping thinks for historical purposes. >> If we want to do that we should create an Archive. And we should then >> make shure the stuff can be build by offering all needed dependency. >>>
The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of OpenOffice.org (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and be sure there is a link to any replacement document. >>> We keep old sources around so my thinking is that we should somehow >>> maintain a place for people to find build instructions. >> We have the instruction in our Git Repository. >>> >>> I do think it would help if they were more specific in exactly what >>> versions they were appropriate for and have links to current pages. >>> >>> These instructions don't always have to be in the form of a wiki page >>> since they are historical in nature. PDF maybe? >>> >>> Kind of like when I recently went looking for information on the mwiki >>> IDL extension and found the page was deleted 8 years ago. >> There is a difference between old information that we still need and >> out dated Information. >> Maybe we could do something with Archive.org? Maybe we find people that >> would look into the stuff and create a plan how to archive this stuff. > I agree there is a LOT of wiki pages and other things that are either > not relevant anymore or just outdated. > I'm not sure about depending on a third party as an archive. > > I think a banner paragraph about being outdated with a link to the > current page is one way to handle it. I have already marked it with the outdated template and there is alreay a link to the replacement doc. Regards Keith > A redirect would be another but hard to view it if it's actually needed > by someone. > Maybe a combination of moving the contents to an archive area, adding > the redirect and adding a link to the archive somewhere on the new page? > > I don't think something like our database backed mwiki is the best going > forward either if we need to migrate it or upgrade it every few years. > Plus the dev guide breaking issue we just resolved. > I'm much more in favor of a file based solution. But a migration would > be a huge effort also unless some automation is used. > > Maybe this should be a more overall project discussion on how we want to > handle these cases. > > Best regards, > Carl --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
