+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`
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
>
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
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there's a banner that says "this is out of date, please use the newest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
+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
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
