I think this old discussion about dropping support for ARMv5 (https://github.com/golang/go/issues/17082) makes a point for having docs for older Go versions. It's not always a matter of laziness, sometimes there's no choice. Yeah, the poor lad inheriting a legacy system may and probably will have to generate docs locally, and it takes work and time to maintain docs archives, but if someone is willing to do it, I think there are good cases for it.
El viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 20:54:34 (UTC-3), Florin Pățan escribió: > > I think this would further encourage people to be lazy and not upgrade to > newer Go versions. > > This always leads to problems, especially when things like tooling is > involved, and especially > when the debugger side of Go improved so much between versions. > > I always liked the fact that Go only shows the docs for the current > version, forcing everyone > else to either upgrade or run their own godoc locally for their Go version. > > As such, I think it would be a mistake to support anything else but the > current version (and tip, ofc). > > On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 6:07:49 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:49 AM, derek <den...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <ia...@golang.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Like for Nodejs, and Python and many other language has permanent >> >>> archived docs for olders versions: >> >>> >> >>> https://nodejs.org/docs/v8.4.0/api/http2.html is permanent URL for >> >>> nodejs v8.4.0 >> >>> >> >>> https://nodejs.org/api/http2.html is always pointing to latest >> version >> >> >> >> We don't have that. You can build it yourself easily enough: clone >> >> the git repo, check out 1.6 and run godoc with the -goroot option >> >> pointing at that directory. >> > >> > I know how to set up a godoc site locally, but the problem then is not >> > Google searchable... harder to share via a single link about a >> > historic library function design... >> > So I prefer if anyone knows a 3rd party godoc service online for a >> > longer period? >> > >> > And question to the ones behind the official golang.org/doc/.. , Is >> > there a reason intentionally not doing so? for the archived docs for >> > older versions? >> > It's unbelievable not providing any information online about historic >> > versions, all because relatively young age? >> > >> > I know the Go designer's goal for 1.x at least is to be backward >> > compatible for all historic versions down to 1.0? >> > So when every newer 1.x version release, it's kind of calling everyone >> > to upgrade, >> > But if suppose there's a Go 1.x version market share research, I don't >> > believe the current latest 1.9 has taken all 100% of share? The Go1.8 >> > may still have 20% and Go1.6 10% ? >> > >> > I don't have the exact numbers, but The archived docs for an older >> > version still must have some value; >> > >> > In the longer future, when Go 2 released, it can't take 100% market >> > share at day1, right? it might take some years to convince every Go >> > user to upgrade, Would you have an archived godoc for the last 1.x ? >> >> Perhaps. It's certainly worth considering. >> >> Maintaining online docs for older Go versions sounds like a fine idea >> to me. It also sounds like work that somebody has to do. >> >> >> > To any 3rd party Go related site owners, would you like to setup such >> > archives service? >> >> Sounds like a good approach. Or I'm also open to someone writing the >> necessary code for golang.org. >> >> Ian >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
