On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM, M.-A. Lemburg
On 27.10.2012 08:22, Nick Coghlan wrote:
So that's my concrete proposal: 1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right) 2. We pick a stable URL prefix for the Python 2 docs (I vote "/2.x/")
Why "/2.x/" and not just "/2/" ?
I find the /2/ vs /3/ too easy to miss in the middle of a full URL, whereas I find the extra space to the right of the number in /2.x/ vs /3.x/ makes them easier to separate. However, in writing up the PEP, I discovered it was annoyingly ambiguous whether "/2.x/" specifically meant that URL, or whether it meant "/2.7/" and friends, so I switched to the shorter form.
3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately
I think we should do the same for all Python 3 resources, i.e. have "/library/os.html" redirect to "/3/library/os.html" so that we don't run into the same problem again in the future.
In writing up the PEP, I rediscovered an old proposal of mine to avoid breaking deep links by simply do a "documented deprecation" of unqualified deep links, but otherwise leaving them pointing to Python 2. Only the default landing page would be switched to Python 3. Since that approach avoids a *lot* of issues, that's what I ended writing up.
4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7 docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide
We also need a solution for URLs that exist for Python 2, but not for Python 3. Those should be redirected to the Python 2 resource automatically, e.g. URLs pointing to the Python 2 modules that were renamed in Python 3.
BTW: Will you write up a PEP for this ?
Committed as PEP 430, should show up http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0430 before too long. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia