Old build Documentation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
47 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Old build Documentation

Peter Kovacs-3
Hello all,

do we still need the documentation description for:

https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html

http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html

https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide


I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search results
on duck duck go.

And then you click through the history.

My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build


Can we retire those pages? We have them in the repository if needed.

All the Best

Peter

--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Old build Documentation

Arrigo Marchiori
Hello Peter,

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 01:30:21AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> do we still need the documentation description for:
>
> https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html
>
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide

I read quickly through them and vote for: no, please let us get rid of
them.

> I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search results on
> duck duck go.
>
> And then you click through the history.
>
> My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build

This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get rid
of those pages as quickly as possible.

Or, better, have them redirect straight to
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO so
that who clicks on the outdated links is redirected to the more up to
date documentation.

Best regards,
--
rigo

http://rigo.altervista.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Old build Documentation

Arrigo Marchiori
Hello All,

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 02:13:46PM +0100, Arrigo Marchiori wrote:

[...]
> This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get rid
> of those pages as quickly as possible.

I apologize, I meant "unfortunate".
--
rigo

http://rigo.altervista.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Old build Documentation

Carl Marcum
In reply to this post by Arrigo Marchiori
Hi Peter,

On 12/19/20 8:13 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote:

> Hello Peter,
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 01:30:21AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> do we still need the documentation description for:
>>
>> https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html
>>
>> http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html
>>
>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide
> I read quickly through them and vote for: no, please let us get rid of
> them.
>
>> I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search results on
>> duck duck go.
>>
>> And then you click through the history.
>>
>> My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build
> This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get rid
> of those pages as quickly as possible.
>
> Or, better, have them redirect straight to
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO so
> that who clicks on the outdated links is redirected to the more up to
> date documentation.
>
> Best regards,
I hate running into old cruft on the wiki also. However..

I think it comes down to keeping thinks for historical purposes.

We keep old sources around so my thinking is that we should somehow
maintain a place for people to find build instructions.

I do think it would help if they were more specific in exactly what
versions they were appropriate for and have links to current pages.

These instructions don't always have to be in the form of a wiki page
since they are historical in nature. PDF maybe?

Kind of like when I recently went looking for information on the mwiki
IDL extension and found the page was deleted 8 years ago.

Best regards,
Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Old build Documentation

Peter Kovacs-3

On 19.12.20 14:38, Carl Marcum wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
> On 12/19/20 8:13 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote:
>> Hello Peter,
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 01:30:21AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> do we still need the documentation description for:
>>>
>>> https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html
>>>
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide
>> I read quickly through them and vote for: no, please let us get rid of
>> them.
>>
>>> I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search
>>> results on
>>> duck duck go.
>>>
>>> And then you click through the history.
>>>
>>> My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build
>> This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get rid
>> of those pages as quickly as possible.
>>
>> Or, better, have them redirect straight to
>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO so
>> that who clicks on the outdated links is redirected to the more up to
>> date documentation.
>>
>> Best regards,
> I hate running into old cruft on the wiki also. However..
>
> I think it comes down to keeping thinks for historical purposes.
If we want to do that we should create an Archive. And we should then
make shure the stuff can be build by offering all needed dependency.
>
> We keep old sources around so my thinking is that we should somehow
> maintain a place for people to find build instructions.
We have the instruction in our Git Repository.
>
> I do think it would help if they were more specific in exactly what
> versions they were appropriate for and have links to current pages.
>
> These instructions don't always have to be in the form of a wiki page
> since they are historical in nature. PDF maybe?
>
> Kind of like when I recently went looking for information on the mwiki
> IDL extension and found the page was deleted 8 years ago.
There is a difference between old information that we still need and out
dated Information.
Maybe we could do something with Archive.org? Maybe we find people that
would look into the stuff and create a plan how to archive this stuff.
--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Old build Documentation

Carl Marcum
Hi Peter,

On 12/19/20 12:09 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

>
> On 19.12.20 14:38, Carl Marcum wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 12/19/20 8:13 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote:
>>> Hello Peter,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 01:30:21AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> do we still need the documentation description for:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide
>>> I read quickly through them and vote for: no, please let us get rid of
>>> them.
>>>
>>>> I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search
>>>> results on
>>>> duck duck go.
>>>>
>>>> And then you click through the history.
>>>>
>>>> My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build
>>> This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get rid
>>> of those pages as quickly as possible.
>>>
>>> Or, better, have them redirect straight to
>>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO so
>>> that who clicks on the outdated links is redirected to the more up to
>>> date documentation.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>> I hate running into old cruft on the wiki also. However..
>>
>> I think it comes down to keeping thinks for historical purposes.
> If we want to do that we should create an Archive. And we should then
> make shure the stuff can be build by offering all needed dependency.
>>
>> We keep old sources around so my thinking is that we should somehow
>> maintain a place for people to find build instructions.
> We have the instruction in our Git Repository.
>>
>> I do think it would help if they were more specific in exactly what
>> versions they were appropriate for and have links to current pages.
>>
>> These instructions don't always have to be in the form of a wiki page
>> since they are historical in nature. PDF maybe?
>>
>> Kind of like when I recently went looking for information on the
>> mwiki IDL extension and found the page was deleted 8 years ago.
> There is a difference between old information that we still need and
> out dated Information.
> Maybe we could do something with Archive.org? Maybe we find people
> that would look into the stuff and create a plan how to archive this
> stuff.
I agree there is a LOT of wiki pages and other things that are either
not relevant anymore or just outdated.
I'm not sure about depending on a third party as an archive.

I think a banner paragraph about being outdated with a link to the
current page is one way to handle it.
A redirect would be another but hard to view it if it's actually needed
by someone.
Maybe a combination of moving the contents to an archive area, adding
the redirect and adding a link to the archive somewhere on the new page?

I don't think something like our database backed mwiki is the best going
forward either if we need to migrate it or upgrade it every few years.
Plus the dev guide breaking issue we just resolved.
I'm much more in favor of a file based solution. But a migration would
be a huge effort also unless some automation is used.

Maybe this should be a more overall project discussion on how we want to
handle these cases.

Best regards,
Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Old build Documentation

Keith N. McKenna
On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 13:11:10 -0500, Carl Marcum wrote:
Comments inline

> Hi Peter,
>
> On 12/19/20 12:09 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>
>> On 19.12.20 14:38, Carl Marcum wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> On 12/19/20 8:13 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote:
>>>> Hello Peter,
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 01:30:21AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> do we still need the documentation description for:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows_pre638.html
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/tools/dev_docs/build_windows.html
>>>>>
>>>>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide
>>>> I read quickly through them and vote for: no, please let us get rid
>>>> of them.
>>>>
>>>>> I mean, the first link is the first relevant result on my search
>>>>> results on duck duck go.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then you click through the history.
>>>>>
>>>>> My search words are: OpenOffice windopws build
>>>> This is quite infortunate, and (still IMHO) one more reason to get
>>>> rid of those pages as quickly as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Or, better, have them redirect straight to
>>>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO so
>>>> that who clicks on the outdated links is redirected to the more up to
>>>> date documentation.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>> I hate running into old cruft on the wiki also. However..
>>>
>>> I think it comes down to keeping thinks for historical purposes.
>> If we want to do that we should create an Archive. And we should then
>> make shure the stuff can be build by offering all needed dependency.
>>>

 The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of OpenOffice.org
(OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and be
sure there is a link to any replacement document.

>>> We keep old sources around so my thinking is that we should somehow
>>> maintain a place for people to find build instructions.
>> We have the instruction in our Git Repository.
>>>
>>> I do think it would help if they were more specific in exactly what
>>> versions they were appropriate for and have links to current pages.
>>>
>>> These instructions don't always have to be in the form of a wiki page
>>> since they are historical in nature. PDF maybe?
>>>
>>> Kind of like when I recently went looking for information on the mwiki
>>> IDL extension and found the page was deleted 8 years ago.
>> There is a difference between old information that we still need and
>> out dated Information.
>> Maybe we could do something with Archive.org? Maybe we find people that
>> would look into the stuff and create a plan how to archive this stuff.
> I agree there is a LOT of wiki pages and other things that are either
> not relevant anymore or just outdated.
> I'm not sure about depending on a third party as an archive.
>
> I think a banner paragraph about being outdated with a link to the
> current page is one way to handle it.

I have already marked it with the outdated template and there is alreay a
link to the replacement doc.

Regards
Keith


> A redirect would be another but hard to view it if it's actually needed
> by someone.
> Maybe a combination of moving the contents to an archive area, adding
> the redirect and adding a link to the archive somewhere on the new page?
>
> I don't think something like our database backed mwiki is the best going
> forward either if we need to migrate it or upgrade it every few years.
> Plus the dev guide breaking issue we just resolved.
> I'm much more in favor of a file based solution. But a migration would
> be a huge effort also unless some automation is used.
>
> Maybe this should be a more overall project discussion on how we want to
> handle these cases.
>
> Best regards,
> Carl



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)

Peter Kovacs-3
I change subject since I venture to more generic topic.


On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>   The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of OpenOffice.org
> (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and be
> sure there is a link to any replacement document.

For me this rule does not add up. Marking pages out dated is not the
solution. We are not a museum.

These pages are so dire old, no body knows if that what the pages are
saying are any accurate, or what.

We should create an Archive section, and then create there a static html
site that preserves the state in order to honor history.

We can add some information maybe like contributors and stuff. If this
sentiment is important. But we should move pages that are confusing and
irrelevant to our work somewhere they are not in the way.

I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion: archive.openoffice.org)
site, and move pages there, that have only historic value.


There is no rush, but cleaning up would help us to refresh our minds.
But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of
old baggage around. And we have difficulties to find the right information.


just my 2 cents.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)

Keith N. McKenna
Greetings Peter, comments are inline.
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:32:15 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:

> I change subject since I venture to more generic topic.
>
>
> On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>   The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of
>>   OpenOffice.org
>> (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and
>> be sure there is a link to any replacement document.
>
All I am attempting to do is to explain what longstanding policy has been
for the wiki. If the community wants to change that fine I do believe it
needs a [Discusstion] thread of it's own rather than just a change of
topic in a related thread.

> For me this rule does not add up. Marking pages out dated is not the
> solution. We are not a museum.

> These pages are so dire old, no body knows if that what the pages are
> saying are any accurate, or what.

That is why they were to be marked as outdated ank links to the newer
documents provided. There is also a way to create internal redirects to
the newer pages such that if the old document is clicked it automatically
opens the newer document.

> We should create an Archive section, and then create there a static html
> site that preserves the state in order to honor history.

That is another way to handle it that deserves to be in a [Discussion]
thread for a policy change.

> We can add some information maybe like contributors and stuff. If this
> sentiment is important. But we should move pages that are confusing and
> irrelevant to our work somewhere they are not in the way.
>
> I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion: archive.openoffice.org)
> site, and move pages there, that have only historic value.

Again should be in a [Discussion} thread devoted to a policy change.

>
> There is no rush, but cleaning up would help us to refresh our minds.
> But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of
> old baggage around. And we have difficulties to find the right
> information.

That is where we definitely agree. The mwiki has suffered from neglect for
far to long and needs an overhaul. Whether that takes place here or in a
thread of it's own is up to the community.

Regards
Keith

>
> just my 2 cents.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)

Dave Fisher-3


Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 20, 2020, at 9:58 AM, Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Greetings Peter, comments are inline.
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:32:15 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>
>> I change subject since I venture to more generic topic.
>>
>>
>>> On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>  The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of
>>>  OpenOffice.org
>>> (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and
>>> be sure there is a link to any replacement document.
>>
> All I am attempting to do is to explain what longstanding policy has been
> for the wiki. If the community wants to change that fine I do believe it
> needs a [Discusstion] thread of it's own rather than just a change of
> topic in a related thread.
>
>> For me this rule does not add up. Marking pages out dated is not the
>> solution. We are not a museum.
>
>> These pages are so dire old, no body knows if that what the pages are
>> saying are any accurate, or what.
>
> That is why they were to be marked as outdated ank links to the newer
> documents provided. There is also a way to create internal redirects to
> the newer pages such that if the old document is clicked it automatically
> opens the newer document.
>
>> We should create an Archive section, and then create there a static html
>> site that preserves the state in order to honor history.
>
> That is another way to handle it that deserves to be in a [Discussion]
> thread for a policy change.
>
>> We can add some information maybe like contributors and stuff. If this
>> sentiment is important. But we should move pages that are confusing and
>> irrelevant to our work somewhere they are not in the way.
>>
>> I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion: archive.openoffice.org)
>> site, and move pages there, that have only historic value.
>
> Again should be in a [Discussion} thread devoted to a policy change.

I don’t think the effort to move obsolete Wiki pages to static html is worth it. It’s better to label and point. Perhaps it can be done with a macro.

For obsolete html in www.OpenOffice.org we could mark and move to Www.OpenOffice.org/archive/ rather than maintain yet another repository and website.

I think though we can add metadata and a template to quickly mark pages as obsolete. Redirection or inserted link using additional metadata is possible. This is a few hours work to setup. I would volunteer to enable it.

Regards,
Dave

>
>>
>> There is no rush, but cleaning up would help us to refresh our minds.
>> But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of
>> old baggage around. And we have difficulties to find the right
>> information.
>
> That is where we definitely agree. The mwiki has suffered from neglect for
> far to long and needs an overhaul. Whether that takes place here or in a
> thread of it's own is up to the community.
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
>>
>> just my 2 cents.
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)

Keith N. McKenna
In reply to this post by Keith N. McKenna
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 11:03:17 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote:

> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Dec 20, 2020, at 9:58 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings Peter, comments are inline.
>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:32:15 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>
>>> I change subject since I venture to more generic topic.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>  The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of
>>>>  OpenOffice.org
>>>> (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and
>>>> be sure there is a link to any replacement document.
>>>
>> All I am attempting to do is to explain what longstanding policy has
>> been for the wiki. If the community wants to change that fine I do
>> believe it needs a [Discusstion] thread of it's own rather than just a
>> change of topic in a related thread.
>>
<snip>

>>> I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion:
>>> archive.openoffice.org) site, and move pages there, that have only
>>> historic value.
>>
>> Again should be in a [Discussion} thread devoted to a policy change.
>
> I don’t think the effort to move obsolete Wiki pages to static html is
> worth it. It’s better to label and point. Perhaps it can be done with a
> macro.
>

Dave I agree with you. There is a way to redirect outdated pages to the
newer documents. I will look into the mediawiki documents for the way to
do it.

regards
Keith

> For obsolete html in www.OpenOffice.org we could mark and move to
> Www.OpenOffice.org/archive/ rather than maintain yet another repository
> and website.
>
> I think though we can add metadata and a template to quickly mark pages
> as obsolete. Redirection or inserted link using additional metadata is
> possible. This is a few hours work to setup. I would volunteer to enable
> it.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>> There is no rush, but cleaning up would help us to refresh our minds.
>>> But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of
>>> old baggage around. And we have difficulties to find the right
>>> information.
>>
>> That is where we definitely agree. The mwiki has suffered from neglect
>> for far to long and needs an overhaul. Whether that takes place here or
>> in a thread of it's own is up to the community.
>>
>> Regards Keith
>>
>>
>>> just my 2 cents.
>>>
>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] For
>> additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)

Peter Kovacs-3
In reply to this post by Keith N. McKenna

On 20.12.20 18:58, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

> Greetings Peter, comments are inline.
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:32:15 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>
>> I change subject since I venture to more generic topic.
>>
>>
>> On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>    The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days of
>>>    OpenOffice.org
>>> (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as outdated and
>>> be sure there is a link to any replacement document.
> All I am attempting to do is to explain what longstanding policy has been
> for the wiki. If the community wants to change that fine I do believe it
> needs a [Discusstion] thread of it's own rather than just a change of
> topic in a related thread.

Not meant as any Critics towards you. I believe that we should reduce
the pages that we carry around.

And less pages means more control over documentation.

On the Wiki a lot of people wrote plans, Ideas or Work coordinations.
For example Damjan Documented his gmake port work somewhere,

which has some state. (I would not Archive it yet, but it's worth is
counted.)

Dave wrote:

> I don’t think the effort to move obsolete Wiki pages to static html is worth it. It’s better to label and point. Perhaps it can be done with a macro.

I think there are a substantial amount of pages that we can drop.
However I have no numbers. Maybe we add a Category Archive in order to
get an Overview.

I think there is an Archive Template. At least I have seen something on
the older pages, that were outdated.

> I think though we can add metadata and a template to quickly mark pages as obsolete. Redirection or inserted link using additional metadata is possible. This is a few hours work to setup. I would volunteer to enable it.

> I think though we can add metadata and a template to quickly mark pages as obsolete. Redirection or inserted link using additional metadata is possible. This is a few hours work to setup. I would volunteer to enable it.
+1, to this plan.


I think sounds like good first steps, and Ideas. Thanks for Keith and
Dave for your thoughts.

--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)

Jörg Schmidt-2
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 12:32 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving
> pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
>
> I change subject since I venture to more generic topic.
>
>
> On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> >   The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days
> of OpenOffice.org
> > (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as
> outdated and be
> > sure there is a link to any replacement document.
>
> For me this rule does not add up. Marking pages out dated is not the
> solution. We are not a museum.
>
> These pages are so dire old, no body knows if that what the pages are
> saying are any accurate, or what.
>
> We should create an Archive section, and then create there a
> static html
> site that preserves the state in order to honor history.
>
> We can add some information maybe like contributors and
> stuff. If this
> sentiment is important. But we should move pages that are
> confusing and
> irrelevant to our work somewhere they are not in the way.
>
> I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion:
> archive.openoffice.org)
> site, and move pages there, that have only historic value.

Can you also tell which ones they are? On what factual basis?

I, personally, had noted e.g. in the confluence-Wiki pages which are important for our daily work AND remain. Have you read that?

> I suggest that we create an archive page (suggestion: archive.openoffice.org)
> Site, and move pages there that have only historical value.

I had already suggested, and continue to suggest, we move all old pages to an archive.
If only certain pages should be moved there, then this must be voted, because it can't be that someone decides randomly.

> There is no rush,

yes, that is how it is. Care is far more important than speed

> But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of
> old baggage around.

-1

It is not your past, but that of other people who have long worked here with diligence where others OO not yet even knew!

my opinion is quite clear:
the memory of the performance of former project members must not be erased, even if they are not PMC members.
The former work at OOo was worth at least as much as the current work at AOO.



greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)

Jörg Schmidt-2
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 3:12 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving
> pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 12:32 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving
> > pages? (was: Old build Documentation)
> >
> > I change subject since I venture to more generic topic.
> >
> >
> > On 19.12.20 22:15, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> > >   The Policy for the mwiki is and has been since the days
> > of OpenOffice.org
> > > (OOo) to NOT delete pages from the wiki but mark them as
> > outdated and be
> > > sure there is a link to any replacement document.
> >
> > For me this rule does not add up. Marking pages out dated
> is not the
> > solution. We are not a museum.
> >
> > These pages are so dire old, no body knows if that what the
> pages are
> > saying are any accurate, or what.
> >
> > We should create an Archive section, and then create there a
> > static html
> > site that preserves the state in order to honor history.
> >
> > We can add some information maybe like contributors and
> > stuff. If this
> > sentiment is important. But we should move pages that are
> > confusing and
> > irrelevant to our work somewhere they are not in the way.
> >
> > I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion:
> > archive.openoffice.org)
> > site, and move pages there, that have only historic value.
>
> Can you also tell which ones they are? On what factual basis?
>
> I, personally, had noted e.g. in the confluence-Wiki pages
> which are important for our daily work AND remain. Have you read that?

It took me a while to find the information, but I mean the sites listed here under "de":
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Website+Migrations


Notice:
Unfortunately I did not manage to write to all reference customers in time for OO's anniversary, but I have been reviewing and updating all the information on the reference customer page (http://www.openoffice.org/de/marketing/referenzkunden.html) for some time now.
At the moment my working tool is a Calc-DAtei (ods), so nothing new is visible on the WEbseite yet.



Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)

Peter Kovacs-3
In reply to this post by Jörg Schmidt-2

On 21.12.20 15:11, Jörg Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> I suggest we create a archive site (suggestion:
>> archive.openoffice.org)
>> site, and move pages there, that have only historic value.
> Can you also tell which ones they are? On what factual basis?
>
> I, personally, had noted e.g. in the confluence-Wiki pages which are important for our daily work AND remain. Have you read that?

I am aware. It is not about a generic archive rampage. I have more in
mind to discuss a process first, then start page by page.

And I have put 3 pages on the line for start. I just want to hint that
there are more, we might want to archive. But we should discuss those
pages each,

since Information should have no value for OpenOffice 4.1.0.

>
>> I suggest that we create an archive page (suggestion: archive.openoffice.org)
>> Site, and move pages there that have only historical value.
> I had already suggested, and continue to suggest, we move all old pages to an archive.
> If only certain pages should be moved there, then this must be voted, because it can't be that someone decides randomly.

Well this Idea did not reach consent. We need another Idea. I am fine
with reaching consent page by page.

And as you see I already did this with the 3 pages I mentioned earlier.

>> There is no rush,
> yes, that is how it is. Care is far more important than speed
>
>> But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time with loads of
>> old baggage around.
> -1
> It is not your past, but that of other people who have long worked here with diligence where others OO not yet even knew!

I have never said that. If it were mine, I would not have started a
discussion about it. I would have acted. Instead I start a discussion to
achieve consent.

How we should deal with our heritage? And just in case any one assumes I
have made my mind up: No I have not. And your opinion is of course also

welcome. But you sound very reserved. I would like to see if you think
about it how we could process this correctly so it works for all. Not
taking in account the workload or the time it needs.

Just think on the right things, that we need to do.

> my opinion is quite clear:
> the memory of the performance of former project members must not be erased, even if they are not PMC members.
> The former work at OOo was worth at least as much as the current work at AOO.

This is a valid thought. However there are more ways to archive this,
then dumping a state X into an Archive. We do not need to preserve every
commit online.

Our code repository does also not contain the complete commit history.

I heard so many stories by now, and none is documented anywhere. I do
not think keeping the pages as is is telling anyone the history on this
project.

This is by the way I suggested "outsiders" that focus on preserving
history. Maybe I am a bit inspired by my own comparison that we are not
a museum,

but maybe one would be good for the complete community. I do not know.
It is just a wired Idea. But I am fine with going to archive stuff
somehow to get a better Idea.


--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? (was: Old build Documentation)

Jörg Schmidt-2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 6:06 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving
> pages? (was: Old build Documentation)

> I am aware. It is not about a generic archive rampage. I have more in
> mind to discuss a process first, then start page by page.

OK
 
> And I have put 3 pages on the line for start. I just want to
> hint that
> there are more, we might want to archive. But we should discuss those
> pages each,

+1

I think we need a list/table of all pages then so we can vote on individual pages.
We could set up a table here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Website+Migrations

I will create a draft in the next few days. Is that okay?

> be voted, because it can't be that someone decides randomly.
>
> Well this Idea did not reach consent. We need another Idea. I am fine
> with reaching consent page by page.
>
> And as you see I already did this with the 3 pages I
> mentioned earlier.

I have to read up first, at the moment I have not read what you are talking about here.

> >> There is no rush,
> > yes, that is how it is. Care is far more important than speed
> >
> >> But to forget stuff is important or we run all the time
> with loads of
> >> old baggage around.
> > -1
> > It is not your past, but that of other people who have long
> worked here with diligence where others OO not yet even knew!
>
> I have never said that. If it were mine, I would not have started a
> discussion about it. I would have acted. Instead I start a
> discussion to
> achieve consent.
>
> How we should deal with our heritage? And just in case any
> one assumes I
> have made my mind up: No I have not. And your opinion is of
> course also
>
> welcome. But you sound very reserved. I would like to see if
> you think
> about it how we could process this correctly so it works for all. Not
> taking in account the workload or the time it needs.
>
> Just think on the right things, that we need to do.

Well, the right thing to do (and I said this a long time ago) would be to archive the old pages completely.
(You could also make the old pages static).

The new web pages we could, in this case, create completely free, so both partly use old content and update or create completely new content.

What is the decisive advantage:
-------------------------------
There would be no need for a discussion about what to archive, because we archive everything and no one would have to worry about things disappearing that they consider important.

> However there are more ways to archive this,
> then dumping a state X into an Archive. We do not need to
> preserve every
> commit online.
>
> Our code repository does also not contain the complete commit history.

my personal opinion is very simple:
for me it would be enough to archive a static copy of the current state of the web pages, a history is not needed (in my opinion).

May I ask: has anyone specifically asked for more? Has asked for a history?

If not, let's put it to the vote by asking:
Does an archive of old web pages need a history or is the last actual state sufficient?

(Note: at the places where pages are empty for technical reasons, the last actual state is the filled page, i.e. practically: if someone takes the trouble to reconstruct the content, he may do so).  
 
> I heard so many stories by now, and none is documented anywhere. I do
> not think keeping the pages as is is telling anyone the
> history on this
> project.

and I hear so much self-praise from the PMC ... 'and a lot is not documented', kept secret from the community, not allowed to be discussed publicly

> This is by the way I suggested "outsiders" that focus on preserving
> history. Maybe I am a bit inspired by my own comparison that
> we are not
> a museum,

What I see is that today there are people in the PMC who have not done nearly as much for OpenOffice as others who are not in the PMC.
What I see is that there is a tendency among some to value AOO more than OOo and to think that work for OOo should not be valued by us.  

This is not fair, and it does not motivate anyone, because work done is not rewarded fairly, but its publicly visible appreciation is dependent on the opinion of privileged individuals.



greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?

Andrea Pescetti-2
On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote:
> my personal opinion is very simple:
> for me it would be enough to archive a static copy of the current state of the web pages, a history is not needed (in my opinion).

This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content, like the main
OpenOffice.org site). And I believe this is enough to our preservation
purposes.

For mwiki we have templates and that is probably fine; but maybe we can
find a way (with appropriate plugins) to inject "[OUTDATED]" into the
HTML "title" tag of relevant pages, so that people who use search
engines will not be misled into outdated pages.

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?

Jörg Schmidt-2
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:24 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?
>
> On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote:
> > my personal opinion is very simple:
> > for me it would be enough to archive a static copy of the
> current state of the web pages, a history is not needed (in
> my opinion).
>
> This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content,
> like the main
> OpenOffice.org site). And I believe this is enough to our
> preservation
> purposes.
>
> For mwiki we have templates and that is probably fine; but
> maybe we can
> find a way (with appropriate plugins) to inject "[OUTDATED]" into the
> HTML "title" tag of relevant pages, so that people who use search
> engines will not be misled into outdated pages.

How do we want to define "outdated pages"?

Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they are needed (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or in forums).
Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical info for the creation of extensions:
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extensions

These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no more current information.


We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) archive for previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of which we are sure that it includes all previous content.

Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be a nice-to-have, but I wouldn't really want to spend time on that, especially since, as I just described with an example, it's difficult to clearly tell which pages are really outdated.

Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the start page (web and wiki) of the current pages.



Jörg





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?

Marcus (OOo)
Am 29.12.20 um 09:54 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:24 AM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?
>>
>> On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote:
>>> my personal opinion is very simple:
>>> for me it would be enough to archive a static copy of the
>> current state of the web pages, a history is not needed (in
>> my opinion).
>>
>> This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content,
>> like the main
>> OpenOffice.org site). And I believe this is enough to our
>> preservation
>> purposes.
>>
>> For mwiki we have templates and that is probably fine; but
>> maybe we can
>> find a way (with appropriate plugins) to inject "[OUTDATED]" into the
>> HTML "title" tag of relevant pages, so that people who use search
>> engines will not be misled into outdated pages.
>
> How do we want to define "outdated pages"?

in general, for me a page is outdated when there is a new one with
updated content.

If only parts are outdated, then the complete page cannot be outdated.
Then we have to mark only the respective parts as outdated.

> Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they are needed (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or in forums).
> Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical info for the creation of extensions:
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extensions

Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages to dev@ and
judge case by case what to do.

> These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no more current information.
>
>
> We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) archive for previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of which we are sure that it includes all previous content.
>
> Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be a nice-to-have, but I wouldn't really want to spend time on that, especially since, as I just described with an example, it's difficult to clearly tell which pages are really outdated.
>
> Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the start page (web and wiki) of the current pages.

The footer is only visible when you scroll comletely down. But many
pages are longer and the searched information is maybe not far away from
the top. Then you don't notice that the content is outdated.

I don't recomemnd to put it in the footer. Having it on top is more helpful.

Marcus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?

Dave Fisher-2


Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 29, 2020, at 3:40 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am 29.12.20 um 09:54 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:24 AM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?
>>>
>>>> On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> my personal opinion is very simple:
>>>>> for me it would be enough to archive a static copy of the
>>> current state of the web pages, a history is not needed (in
>>> my opinion).
>>>
>>> This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content,
>>> like the main
>>> OpenOffice.org site). And I believe this is enough to our
>>> preservation
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>> For mwiki we have templates and that is probably fine; but
>>> maybe we can
>>> find a way (with appropriate plugins) to inject "[OUTDATED]" into the
>>> HTML "title" tag of relevant pages, so that people who use search
>>> engines will not be misled into outdated pages.
>> How do we want to define "outdated pages"?
>
> in general, for me a page is outdated when there is a new one with updated content.
>
> If only parts are outdated, then the complete page cannot be outdated. Then we have to mark only the respective parts as outdated.
>
>> Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they are needed (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or in forums).
>> Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical info for the creation of extensions:
>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extensions
>
> Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages to dev@ and judge case by case what to do.
>
>> These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no more current information.
>> We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) archive for previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of which we are sure that it includes all previous content.
>> Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be a nice-to-have, but I wouldn't really want to spend time on that, especially since, as I just described with an example, it's difficult to clearly tell which pages are really outdated.
>> Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on each archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link to the start page (web and wiki) of the current pages.
>
> The footer is only visible when you scroll comletely down. But many pages are longer and the searched information is maybe not far away from the top. Then you don't notice that the content is outdated.
>
> I don't recomemnd to put it in the footer. Having it on top is more helpful.
>

I agree that messaging should be at the top.

What we can do is allow metadata inserted at the top of the source and then modify templates to see this.

(1) append a message to the html title.
(2) provide a link to the updated page at the top of the content.

Regards,
Dave

> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

123