On 6/22/2016 1:38 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Sounds good in general, but would it be better to just create a new page and leave existing one in tact so that links to entries all remain functional?
>
> Also, it might be a better question for users@ list. I cannot think of any reason for a dev to object to someone who wants to put in the effort. Users might have more feedback on what is still valuable.
I'd second this suggestion. This would allow keeping the links intact.
Obviously the menu/navbar entry should change to state something like:
FAQ (old) or FAQ (deprecated) with the new FAQ page then replacing the
old one (with the filename being something like faq_new.html or
faq_v2.html for instance). Eventually that link could be dropped at one
time with the faq.html page still being available for some extended
period at the appropriate time.
>
>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 7:20 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think our FAQ is a bit of a mess (with all due respect to the people
>> who have contributed to it over the years -- time has just taken its
>> toll). Some questions are no longer relevant for recent releases (e.g.
>> documented workarounds for problems that have since been fixed; or
>> referring to BDB or subversion 1.0 or ...).
>>
>> I'd like to clean it up a bit:
>> 1) Move anything only relevant to old releases (anything < 1.9 or <
>> 1.8 (?)) to a separate page (faq_old.html or something -- linked from
>> the main faq with a link somewhere at the top "Questions about older
>> releases").
To be consistent with the statement of supported versions, I'd at least
keep everything relevant to the old-stable version (aka: 1.8) in the
actual FAQ. Maybe moved to a section for old-stable, to point out it no
longer applies to the current stable version. But dropping documentation
for a still supported (even if only partially supported) version seems
to be premature IMO.
>>
>> 2) Remove some questions that are unlikely to be relevant /
>> interesting anymore (e.g. "How is Subversion affected by the 2007
>> changes in Daylight Savings Time (DST)?")
For outdated information: Fully agree.
For BDB-related information, I would not yet call it outdated though. At
least not before BDB support is dropped from SVN completely (and then
(re-)move that information at the same time when the old-stable version
no longer supports it), since it's still applicable to the current
supported version.
--
Regards,
Stefan Hett
Received on 2016-06-22 14:07:59 CEST