Happy to help with this. We can move the RTD builds to using Sphinx
HTMLDir, and then redirects won't be necessary for the page titles, at
least.
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:58:03 PM UTC-4, Florian Apolloner
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 4:24:09 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 4:24:09 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> I guess I'm not strongly opposed if someone wants to do that, but I don't
> think I can justify spending time on the DSF's dime to help out users of
> unsupported versions.
>
+1
--
You received this message because you
I guess I'm not strongly opposed if someone wants to do that, but I don't
think I can justify spending time on the DSF's dime to help out users of
unsupported versions.
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 9:33:52 AM UTC-5, Fred Stluka wrote:
>
> I vote for a 301 to the matching ReadTheDocs page.
>
I vote for a 301 to the matching ReadTheDocs page.
I recently had to manually update these bookmarks:
- Django 1.4 Docs
- Old: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.4/
- New: https://django.readthedocs.org/en/1.4/
- Django 1.4 API Ref
- Old: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.4/ref/
- Ne
Well, that made me sad (and confused) yesterday when I suddenly couldn't
find docs via either djangoproject.com OR Google for some topics for 1.4
(we're in the process of upgrading a large and crufty codebase from 1.4 to
1.8 via 1.6).
Please at least don't eliminate the readthedocs versions in
+1
Yes, you should upgrade, but the reality is that some people have old
versions lying around. They should be _somewhere_, be it 'hard' to find. A
PDF or Epub is fine as well, that removes the need to maintain the build of
the docs for unsupported versions.
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at
IMHO We should keep the older version of docs somewhere, ReadTheDocs it's
fine.
But we can't only remove them. We may notice the users instead of returning
a simple 404.
There are a lot of people still using those versions.
To keep happy search engines, we should give a 301 to somewhere, not sure
I see no reason to remove old versions from readthedocs.
On 17 February 2016 at 04:22, Felipe Prenholato
wrote:
> I was catch by that change today and found the docs in
> http://django.readthedocs.org/en/1.5.x/.
>
> I wan't to suggest that for documentations that Django will remove from
> docs.d
I was catch by that change today and found the docs in
http://django.readthedocs.org/en/1.5.x/.
I wan't to suggest that for documentations that Django will remove from
docs.djangoproject.com and from django.readthedocs.org we keep instead
links to download PDFs / epubs / HTML zips in some place th
I removed the 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 docs from docs.djangoproject.com today.
They are still available on readthedocs. I've spent more than a couple
hours recently debugging some problems related to documentation builds
there. Some are described in
https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/issues/6
As long as it doesn't hurt we can keep em there -- remove as soon as they
cause a problem ;)
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 4:30:01 PM UTC+2, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> I just discontinued the 1.3 docs on docs.djangoproject.com, they are
> still available on django.readthedocs.org. Do you think we shou
I just discontinued the 1.3 docs on docs.djangoproject.com, they are still
available on django.readthedocs.org. Do you think we should keep it there
or not?
On Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 7:45:15 AM UTC-4, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> I'm in favor of discontinuing older version of the docs. I recently
I'm in favor of discontinuing older version of the docs. I recently fixed
the 1.3 documentation builder since there were several complaints, but no
one has complained about 1.2.
On Thursday, August 7, 2014 7:32:25 AM UTC-4, Areski Belaid wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I wanted to open a discussion reg
Hi Folks,
I wanted to open a discussion regarding the following ticket
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23042
To summarize briefly, you may notice that we can search doc for Django
version 1.2 (for example
https://docs.djangoproject.com/search/?q=forms&release=4) but the links in
the result
14 matches
Mail list logo
