The 3.x docs mostly started fresh with 3.0. The major exception is the What's new section, which goes back to 2.0. The 2.x stuff comprises about 650KB in the repository and whatever that translates into in the distribution. I cannot imagine that anyone who only has 3.x and no 2.x version would have any interest in the 2.x history. And of course, the complete 2.x history will always be available with the latest 2.7.z. And the cover page for 3.x could even say so and include a link. So why not remove it from the 3.2 release (and have two separate pages for the online version)?
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:04:00 -0500 Terry Reedy tjreedy@udel.edu wrote:
The 3.x docs mostly started fresh with 3.0. The major exception is the What's new section, which goes back to 2.0. The 2.x stuff comprises about 650KB in the repository and whatever that translates into in the distribution. I cannot imagine that anyone who only has 3.x and no 2.x version would have any interest in the 2.x history. And of course, the complete 2.x history will always be available with the latest 2.7.z. And the cover page for 3.x could even say so and include a link. So why not remove it from the 3.2 release (and have two separate pages for the online version)?
Well, is there any point in doing so, apart from saving 650KB in the repository? I'm not sure we care about the latter (right now the whole source tree is more than 50MB, and that's without version control information).
Regards
Antoine.
On 1/22/2011 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:04:00 -0500 Terry Reedytjreedy@udel.edu wrote:
The 3.x docs mostly started fresh with 3.0. The major exception is the What's new section, which goes back to 2.0. The 2.x stuff comprises about 650KB in the repository and whatever that translates into in the distribution. I cannot imagine that anyone who only has 3.x and no 2.x version would have any interest in the 2.x history. And of course, the complete 2.x history will always be available with the latest 2.7.z. And the cover page for 3.x could even say so and include a link. So why not remove it from the 3.2 release (and have two separate pages for the online version)?
Well, is there any point in doing so, apart from saving 650KB in the repository? I'm not sure we care about the latter (right now the whole source tree is more than 50MB, and that's without version control information).
I was only proposing actual removal of what to me is noise from the windows help file (now 5.6 mb) with a link to the online version. But the idea is rejected. Fini.
On Jan 22, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
The 3.x docs mostly started fresh with 3.0. The major exception is the What's new section, which goes back to 2.0. The 2.x stuff comprises about 650KB in the repository and whatever that translates into in the distribution. I cannot imagine that anyone who only has 3.x and no 2.x version would have any interest in the 2.x history. And of course, the complete 2.x history will always be available with the latest 2.7.z. And the cover page for 3.x could even say so and include a link. So why not remove it from the 3.2 release (and have two separate pages for the online version)?
I think there is value in the older whatsnew docs. The provide a readable introduction to various features and nicely augment the plain docs which can be a little dry.
+1 for keeping the links as-is. Removing them takes away a resource and gains nothing.
Raymond
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettinger@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
The 3.x docs mostly started fresh with 3.0. The major exception is the What's new section, which goes back to 2.0. The 2.x stuff comprises about 650KB in the repository and whatever that translates into in the distribution. I cannot imagine that anyone who only has 3.x and no 2.x version would have any interest in the 2.x history. And of course, the complete 2.x history will always be available with the latest 2.7.z. And the cover page for 3.x could even say so and include a link. So why not remove it from the 3.2 release (and have two separate pages for the online version)?
I think there is value in the older whatsnew docs. The provide a readable introduction to various features and nicely augment the plain docs which can be a little dry.
+1 for keeping the links as-is. Removing them takes away a resource and gains nothing.
They're also a useful resource when developing compatibility guides for projects that target older versions (including ones that support py3k via 2to3).
With the latest 3.x release always being at the top, I agree with Raymond that retaining the history is a better option.
Cheers, Nick.
Am 23.01.2011 02:48, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettinger@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
The 3.x docs mostly started fresh with 3.0. The major exception is the What's new section, which goes back to 2.0. The 2.x stuff comprises about 650KB in the repository and whatever that translates into in the distribution.. I cannot imagine that anyone who only has 3.x and no 2.x version would have any interest in the 2.x history. And of course, the complete 2.x history will always be available with the latest 2.7.z. And the cover page for 3.x could even say so and include a link. So why not remove it from the 3.2 release (and have two separate pages for the online version)?
I think there is value in the older whatsnew docs. The provide a readable introduction to various features and nicely augment the plain docs which can be a little dry.
+1 for keeping the links as-is. Removing them takes away a resource and gains nothing.
They're also a useful resource when developing compatibility guides for projects that target older versions (including ones that support py3k via 2to3).
With the latest 3.x release always being at the top, I agree with Raymond that retaining the history is a better option.
Agreed.
Georg
participants (5)
-
Antoine Pitrou -
Georg Brandl -
Nick Coghlan -
Raymond Hettinger -
Terry Reedy