gemmellr commented on code in PR #158: URL: https://github.com/apache/artemis-console/pull/158#discussion_r2713296857
########## Releasing.md: ########## @@ -179,20 +178,21 @@ Once the CDN and Maven Central are up-to-date then update the site as follows: 1. Run the release addition script to generate/perform most of the updates by running command of form: ``` -./scripts/release/add-artemis-console-release.sh <new-version> +./scripts/release/add-artemis-console-release.sh <path.to>/artemis-console <previous-version> <new-version> ``` This does the following: - Creates the new release collection file at `src/_artemis_console_releases/artemis-console-<padded-version-string>.md`. - Creates the new release notes file at `src/components/artemis-console/download/release-notes-<new-version>.md`. +- Creates a new directory for the documentation at `src/components/artemis-console/documentation/<new-version>` and copies the documentation into it from the build directory. +- Updates `.htaccess` file in `src/components/artemis-console/documentation` to properly reference the "latest" docs. Review Comment: We do have staging. If left around when not using it, which seems to be the majority of the time (I dont recall anyone besides me really using it in over a decade on projects I've contributed to) then it sits stale most of the time unless cleared out. Things will inevitable start linking to it and get indexed if left around, which sucks if its stale. On the flip side its also a pain to use if cleaning it up after using it. My issue is not with reliably updating the .htaccess (though it seems that was a problem this time), its the breaking of local development and not giving a choice but to deploy changes to test them, especially since the main link we would put on the download page etc then doesnt exist and would be a perpetual temp redirect. I dont think we should be breaking local development either way. Now that I think about it, if the link always redirects, I think any indexing will likely always use the versioned dirs anyway. Little but our site will really reference the latest dir. Kinda seems like we might as well not have or use the 'latest' dir if doing it this way, and just update the sites console pages to always link to the newest version number. I do look at the changes every time I update the site, or any repo really. I think everyone should be checking the diff, it often points to unexpected issues. E.g I found an entire copy of artemis release documentation in completely the wrong place recently, which probably wouldnt have happened if the diff had been looked at before pushing it. I dont know that you can actually git diff two different directories across two different revisions, which is what would be needed to similarly track changes vs a single directory with history. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
