On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Stefan Hett <ste...@egosoft.com> wrote: > On 6/22/2016 1:38 AM, Mark Phippard wrote: >> >> Sounds good in general, but would it be better to just create a new page >> and leave existing one in tact so that links to entries all remain >> functional? >> >> Also, it might be a better question for users@ list. I cannot think of any >> reason for a dev to object to someone who wants to put in the effort. Users >> might have more feedback on what is still valuable. > > I'd second this suggestion. This would allow keeping the links intact. > Obviously the menu/navbar entry should change to state something like: FAQ > (old) or FAQ (deprecated) with the new FAQ page then replacing the old one > (with the filename being something like faq_new.html or faq_v2.html for > instance). Eventually that link could be dropped at one time with the > faq.html page still being available for some extended period at the > appropriate time.
Hm, I think I'll go for stsp's suggestion, to move deprecated questions to the bottom, but keep everything on one page. Something like this: ----- For questions related to deprecated SVN versions, click here (-> #deprecated). TOC (recent) FAQ (recent) === separator / heading / whatever === #deprecated TOC (deprecated) FAQ (deprecated) ----- (that first sentence needs some tweaking) I'll also follow through on Mark's suggestion to ask for feedback on users@, but first want to get the above structure in place to give users a more concrete idea. Note: my web designer skills are totally mediocre. The best I can do is work within the existing design and move things around a bit -- people with more skills in this area are more than welcome to help :-). >> >> >>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 7:20 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think our FAQ is a bit of a mess (with all due respect to the people >>> who have contributed to it over the years -- time has just taken its >>> toll). Some questions are no longer relevant for recent releases (e.g. >>> documented workarounds for problems that have since been fixed; or >>> referring to BDB or subversion 1.0 or ...). >>> >>> I'd like to clean it up a bit: >>> 1) Move anything only relevant to old releases (anything < 1.9 or < >>> 1.8 (?)) to a separate page (faq_old.html or something -- linked from >>> the main faq with a link somewhere at the top "Questions about older >>> releases"). > > To be consistent with the statement of supported versions, I'd at least keep > everything relevant to the old-stable version (aka: 1.8) in the actual FAQ. > Maybe moved to a section for old-stable, to point out it no longer applies > to the current stable version. But dropping documentation for a still > supported (even if only partially supported) version seems to be premature > IMO. Ack. Let's keep everything that's still relevant for 1.8 and later in the "main FAQ". >>> >>> >>> 2) Remove some questions that are unlikely to be relevant / >>> interesting anymore (e.g. "How is Subversion affected by the 2007 >>> changes in Daylight Savings Time (DST)?") > > For outdated information: Fully agree. > For BDB-related information, I would not yet call it outdated though. At > least not before BDB support is dropped from SVN completely (and then > (re-)move that information at the same time when the old-stable version no > longer supports it), since it's still applicable to the current supported > version. Hm, I'd say we move BDB-questions to the deprecated section in the FAQ, since it's been deprecated since 1.8 [1], which is our old stable version. I'm not talking about removing information, but let's move them to the deprecated section. [1] http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.8.html#bdb-deprecated -- Johan
