Hello Keith, On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 07:30:17PM -0500, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> On 1/1/2021 10:06 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote: > > Dear dev@ and doc@ lists, > > > > this message is to inform you that I am (slowly) beginning to put my > > proposal in action. > > > > There is a thread on dev@ that is about archiving old web pages, that > > is currently on hold for the holiday time. I will _not_ wait for that > > thread to reach a conclusion, because I honestly believe that > > archiving build instructions for individual releases does not really > > fit in the purpose of that thread. > > > > If anyone thinks that I am wrong, and that I should instead wait until > > that thread has come to a conclusion, then please just tell me, and I > > will stop and revert any changes. I am just trying not to lose time, > > in the interest of the project. > > > > I take the occasion to wish a happy 2021 to everybody! > > > rigio; > > Irregardless of the archiving thread, I am having a difficult time > seeing the need for per build instructions.I see nothing in the per > revision instructions that is not covered in the generic instructions or > would be better placed in the OS specific instructions. > > Please understand that I look at this purely from a documentation > standpoint as I do not build. From my reading the Build Guides > instructions appear generic enough and link to more specific instruction > for for different operating systems. Please help me understand what I > may be missing. The problem, IMHO, is exactly that they are generic. Because everything changes, like the linked tools (dmake, EPM), the build system itself may evolve, and even the source repositories have changed, it becomes more and more difficult to reproduce the _exact_ build of a past release. I expect such builds to become useful for hunting regression bugs. > Unless you are looking at adding a new operating system > at this point I do not see the need to add per build for instructions > that will just add more pieces that will add to the debate over what to > do with what some will call outdated material and want to have it archived. After a brief work on this topic, I expect each release to require not more than 2 or 3 pages. For sure, I do not want to make the debate any more complex than it is now! That would be the main reason to stop immediately. For the moment, I isolated the "main" build instructions for: - 4.1.8, - 4.1.7, - 4.1.6, - 4.1.5. Those are just snapshots of the main page, taken at (hopefully) appropriate moments in time, with very small changes. I really think that 4.1.8-related pages are important. We currently have two development branches and one RC branch; why should we only have one page for build instructions? I can delete the older ones if others share your point of view. As future perspective, my proposal is to "snapshot" the trunk instructions (once reviewed) for each future release. If we decide that we do not want outdated instructions, we will just delete the next-to-last page. > I look forward to discussing this with you further. Thank you for sharing your opinion! I hope I understood your criticism and replied in topic. Best regards, -- Arrigo http://rigo.altervista.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
