Hi, On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 02:17:29PM +0000, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Second, is that really the intent for "stable"? When we first starting > doing "stable" the intent was to have stable URLs for bookmarking etc. > What you describe, and how we actually handle it (at least on the ORM > side), is more of a "current" Right, I think for Validator and Search "stable" was always equivalent to "current". The latest production release. > As we fix google indexing and revamp the > ORM docs I think this is the perfect time to reconsider all of this. Like > if this is really meant to point to current docs, why are we calling it > "stable" instead of "current" like the rest of the sane universe? ;) Personally I don't mind "stable". I think it is almost better than "current" which is admittedly used more often. That said, Openshift uses latest as well - https://docs.openshift.org/latest/welcome/index.html ;-) > Also in terms of ontology, I'd prefer to invert the URL pattern here a > bit. So currently we have `hibernate/stable/{project}/...`. This causes > problems in terms of releasing because every project's release has to do a > sftp/rsync to the root Hibernate directory (`hibernate/`) on the doc server > to update the "stable" symlink. Which is dangerous. I'd prefer that we > invert that to instead be `hibernate/{project}/stable` (or better yet > `hibernate/{project}/current`). We can keep the > `hibernate/stable/{project}/...` > symlinks; they'd simply point to `hibernate/{project}/current` and never > even have to be updated. That is true, I have been wondering many times why there was a shared "stable" link. Having the stable link under the project itself together with the various available version seems more natural. If we rectify this we just need to make sure that we put proper redirects into place. --Hardy
pgpghobcsiQej.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
