Before we get too entrenched in the address layout, can we have a
better url than "doc", it doesn't really scream out what it does,
Something along the lines "documentation" or "development (probably
not so much)" suggest better about what the address will contain.
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Krinkle <krinklemail(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:18 AM, Antoine Musso
<hashar+wmf(a)free.fr> wrote:
Presenting them as A and B seems flawed as they are separate things:
Let's decouple them into a matrix of more tangible decisions:
A) Do we want to maintain two domain names for our documentation?
No,
* We already have
doc.wikimedia.org,
doc.mediawiki.org would be a new one
* If we maintain separate domain names, when is something "mediawiki" and when
is it "wikimedia"?
For example, documentation for jQuery plugins, VisualEditor etc are stand alone, most
certainly not MediaWiki specific.
There is no reason to force ourselves into this ambiguity. One domain is all we need.
With some redirects perhaps.
B) Hierarchy of directories project, branch and category of code (usually a programming
language). 6 possible combinations of these 3.
*The one I've proposed before and rationalised in the comment thread is project >
branch > code-category.
* This because not all projects have the same code categories. A tree is usually
structured towards more specificity down the tree.
* With the separator of time as high up as possible so that you don't duplicate
versions in multiple locations.
* Easier to maintain if we rename the code categories later on.
* Easier to generate to have everything go in 1 target directory and not separate
directories in different locations.
I appreciate you putting thought into these minor details, but I think this discussion is
pointless because you're not providing any rational input yourself (all I see it
"I prefer" which is undeniably a useless argument to defend against). I can talk
for hours, but it help get the documentation deployed if you don't communicate.
The thread can become slightly more useful if you had actually provided some arguments of
your own. I've explained the reasons for my version, then you reverted it with no
explanation, linking[1] only to this post on wikitech-l, where you merely present A and B
once again with no explanation as to why you disagree in the first place.
I'd love to discuss the advantage of your version or disadvantage of mine, preferably
as a simple response to my question in Gerrit, but here is fine too. Let's keep in
mind the bigger picture and do what's best for the users.
On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:41 AM, bawolff <bawolff+wn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Whichever way we chose, could we have http
redirects from the old
svn.wikimedia.org? There's a lot of urls that link there.
Unrelated.
Yes, of course. When we move it, the old location will become a redirect.
I prefer
doc.mediawiki.org/<project>/<version>/<master> (aka
doc.mediawiki.org/core/master/php ) as in my mind, the hierarchy makes
more sense like that, as the type of code is something more
fine-grained than what version, and also something that belongs to the
version number in a sense. I also like keeping the names MediaWiki and
Wikimedia separate. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter
which way though.
I agree.
It would also be cool if puppet docs were on
doc.wikimedia.org, but if
you had
doc.mediawiki.org in the url, things auto redirected (and vice
veras: if you went to
doc.wikimedia.org/core/master/php things
redirected to
doc.mediawiki.org/core/master/php )
I'm not sure we should be maintaining two domains. We can have
doc.mediawiki.org redirect to
doc.wikimedia.org/mediawiki-core, but to maintain
both would be confusing, decentralising and depending on the implementation,
it would encourage using multiple urls for the same thing. Might as well stick
with one canonical url.
Best,
-- Krinkle
[1]
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/39212
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l