Hi Volkan, On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 11:05, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > I can see the use cases for wanting to keep the website+manual of every > single release in a dedicated directory. Though my counter arguments are: > > 1. These pages were never officially linked, hence were not exposed to > users. What is the pressing need right now to make this happen? > 2. They get search engines confused and cause users to end up in legacy > pages. > 3. The infrastructure to realize this (putting each release to a > separate site branch) is cumbersome, difficult to navigate for developers, > deviates from the standard the rest of our websites follow, and hence > complicates the release process substantially. > 4. We (almost) never break backward compatibility in a major release > line. Hence, the docs of `2.x` is a superset of the docs of, say, `2.22.0`. > We also always document newly added features as "Starting from version > `2.22.0`, ..." Given these, I don't see a compelling point of having a > separate website for `2.22.0`.
I might add that documentation is never bug-free and I consider the documentation of a release as important as the release itself. Since the only maintained releases are 2.22.x and 3.x (and perhaps 2.3.x and 2.12.x for security updates), I don't see a reason to publish the documentation of anything else than those releases. BTW: we should add a banner to the 1.x, extras, 2.3.x and 2.12.x websites that states that they refer to archived software that reached EOL. Piotr
