If Scott is +1 then let’s start a vote thread for this.
Ralph
> On Feb 7, 2024, at 8:56 AM, Robert Middleton wrote:
>
> +1
>
> While I agree that it can be useful, it was never really in a state
> where it is. I think it has a lot of good ideas, but to make it more
> modern and practical it n
+1
While I agree that it can be useful, it was never really in a state
where it is. I think it has a lot of good ideas, but to make it more
modern and practical it needs to have a much better workflow.
I may mess around with it more at some point, but it would take a lot
to be practical.
If the
FWIW I believe that keeping around old sites is useful, but only if
there's a banner that says "this is out of date, please use the newest
version" with a link to the new version. The reason for keeping them
around is that sometimes you are stuck on an older version, so you
need that archived doc
Hi Volkan,
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 11:05, Volkan Yazıcı 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
>use
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 5:46 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> When you say “hard to work with it” what does that mean?
Git commands work slow (e.g., `git status` takes seconds) and it is
difficult to understand what goes where.
> Volkan has mentioned some ideas to me which would allow us to keep the
>
+1
Nit: I would use `2.3.x` and `2.12.x` to match the `.x` suffix convention
we use in `1.x`, `2.x`, and `3.x`. Or totally the other way around, no `.x`
suffix at all: `1`, `2`, `2.3`, `2.12`, and `3`.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 5:06 PM Piotr P. Karwasz
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The current `asf-site`
