Обсуждение: PATCH: add "current" version link to docs page
I previously suggested this could help SEO: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560614CA.1080304@mail.com There wasn't much of a reaction but hopefully actually providing the patch might make the difference. You'll now see something like: 9.2 / 9.3 / current (9.4) at the top of the page, with "current" linking /docs/current and "9.4" linking /docs/9.4. For SEO purposes I think it would actually be better to elide the numbered-version altogether, so people will have to do extra work *not* to link to /docs/current/, but I figured that would turn into a bikeshed, so this less intrusive version is what I'm sending. Amir
Вложения
On 10/05/2015 01:57 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: > I previously suggested this could help SEO: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560614CA.1080304@mail.com > > There wasn't much of a reaction but hopefully actually providing > the patch might make the difference. > > You'll now see something like: > > 9.2 / 9.3 / current (9.4) > > at the top of the page, with "current" linking /docs/current > and "9.4" linking /docs/9.4. > > For SEO purposes I think it would actually be better to elide > the numbered-version altogether, so people will have to do extra work > *not* to link to /docs/current/, but I figured that would turn into > a bikeshed, so this less intrusive version is what I'm sending. > Bump. There's been no response to this, does the silence imply rejection or just very low priority? Regards, Amir
Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/05/2015 01:57 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: > > I previously suggested this could help SEO: > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560614CA.1080304@mail.com > > > > There wasn't much of a reaction but hopefully actually providing > > the patch might make the difference. > > > > You'll now see something like: > > > > 9.2 / 9.3 / current (9.4) > > > > at the top of the page, with "current" linking /docs/current > > and "9.4" linking /docs/9.4. > > > > For SEO purposes I think it would actually be better to elide > > the numbered-version altogether, so people will have to do extra work > > *not* to link to /docs/current/, but I figured that would turn into > > a bikeshed, so this less intrusive version is what I'm sending. > > Bump. There's been no response to this, does the silence imply rejection > or just very low priority? I think this is a good idea, and obviously so does Dave. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 10/21/2015 05:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amir Rohan wrote: >> On 10/05/2015 01:57 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >>> I previously suggested this could help SEO: >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560614CA.1080304@mail.com >>> >>> There wasn't much of a reaction but hopefully actually providing >>> the patch might make the difference. >>> >>> You'll now see something like: >>> >>> 9.2 / 9.3 / current (9.4) >>> >>> at the top of the page, with "current" linking /docs/current >>> and "9.4" linking /docs/9.4. >>> >>> For SEO purposes I think it would actually be better to elide >>> the numbered-version altogether, so people will have to do extra work >>> *not* to link to /docs/current/, but I figured that would turn into >>> a bikeshed, so this less intrusive version is what I'm sending. >> >> Bump. There's been no response to this, does the silence imply rejection >> or just very low priority? > > I think this is a good idea, and obviously so does Dave. > I'll bump periodically until it goes live or someone tells me to stop... Amir
Amir Rohan wrote: > I'll bump periodically until it goes live or someone tells me to stop... That's a simple algorithm. What could possibly go wrong? -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 10/21/2015 06:45 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/21/2015 05:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Amir Rohan wrote: >>> On 10/05/2015 01:57 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >>>> I previously suggested this could help SEO: >>>> >>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560614CA.1080304@mail.com >>>> >>>> There wasn't much of a reaction but hopefully actually providing >>>> the patch might make the difference. >>>> >>>> You'll now see something like: >>>> >>>> 9.2 / 9.3 / current (9.4) >>>> >>>> at the top of the page, with "current" linking /docs/current >>>> and "9.4" linking /docs/9.4. >>>> >>>> For SEO purposes I think it would actually be better to elide >>>> the numbered-version altogether, so people will have to do extra work >>>> *not* to link to /docs/current/, but I figured that would turn into >>>> a bikeshed, so this less intrusive version is what I'm sending. >>> >>> Bump. There's been no response to this, does the silence imply rejection >>> or just very low priority? >> >> I think this is a good idea, and obviously so does Dave. >> > > I'll bump periodically until it goes live or someone tells me to stop... yeah - I have this one on my todo and will try to deal with it soon. Stefan
On 10/21/2015 06:45 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/21/2015 05:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Amir Rohan wrote: >>> On 10/05/2015 01:57 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >>>> I previously suggested this could help SEO: >>>> >>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560614CA.1080304@mail.com >>>> >>>> There wasn't much of a reaction but hopefully actually providing >>>> the patch might make the difference. >>>> >>>> You'll now see something like: >>>> >>>> 9.2 / 9.3 / current (9.4) >>>> >>>> at the top of the page, with "current" linking /docs/current >>>> and "9.4" linking /docs/9.4. >>>> >>>> For SEO purposes I think it would actually be better to elide >>>> the numbered-version altogether, so people will have to do extra work >>>> *not* to link to /docs/current/, but I figured that would turn into >>>> a bikeshed, so this less intrusive version is what I'm sending. >>> >>> Bump. There's been no response to this, does the silence imply rejection >>> or just very low priority? >> >> I think this is a good idea, and obviously so does Dave. >> > > I'll bump periodically until it goes live or someone tells me to stop... Sorry for this taking so long - but I now have applied PATCH 2/2, I didnt bother applying the fixtures one due to multiple issues (some preexisting): * added hunk in the patch clearly was confused about 9.0 vs 8.0 * random whitespace added to some lines * the entire current fixture file is kinda outdated wrt the current data model and needs much bigger rejiggering... thanks for the patch! Stefan
On 11/04/2015 09:17 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > On 10/21/2015 06:45 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >> On 10/21/2015 05:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Amir Rohan wrote: >>>> On 10/05/2015 01:57 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >>>>> I previously suggested this could help SEO: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560614CA.1080304@mail.com >>>>> >>>>> There wasn't much of a reaction but hopefully actually providing >>>>> the patch might make the difference. >>>>> >>>>> You'll now see something like: >>>>> >>>>> 9.2 / 9.3 / current (9.4) >>>>> >>>>> at the top of the page, with "current" linking /docs/current >>>>> and "9.4" linking /docs/9.4. >>>>> >>>>> For SEO purposes I think it would actually be better to elide >>>>> the numbered-version altogether, so people will have to do extra work >>>>> *not* to link to /docs/current/, but I figured that would turn into >>>>> a bikeshed, so this less intrusive version is what I'm sending. >>>> >>>> Bump. There's been no response to this, does the silence imply rejection >>>> or just very low priority? >>> >>> I think this is a good idea, and obviously so does Dave. >>> >> >> I'll bump periodically until it goes live or someone tells me to stop... > > Sorry for this taking so long - but I now have applied PATCH 2/2, I > didnt bother applying the fixtures one due to multiple issues (some > preexisting): > > * added hunk in the patch clearly was confused about 9.0 vs 8.0 > * random whitespace added to some lines > * the entire current fixture file is kinda outdated wrt the current data > model and needs much bigger rejiggering... > > > thanks for the patch! > > > Stefan > Just to set things straight: - The trailing space wasn't added, it was copy-pasted from the rest of the file which has it everywhere. - I wasn't confused about 8.0 vs. 9.0, the fixture is simply *that* old. It doesn't matter if the data is "correct" (and it won't be, in a year or 5), but it needs datums that cover the data model or you can't test your changes. Guess why I was apprehensive about asking for an update and waiting for someone to find the time. :) - Yes, the whole fixture file is really hopelessly out of date and useless for testing, so If you're going to update it with live data , great, but if not please reconsider the patch - I spent about as much time fixing things so I could test my (trivial) change as the change itself. Amir
On 11/04/2015 10:06 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: > On 11/04/2015 09:17 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >> On 10/21/2015 06:45 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >>> On 10/21/2015 05:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>> Amir Rohan wrote: >>>>> On 10/05/2015 01:57 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >>>>>> I previously suggested this could help SEO: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560614CA.1080304@mail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> There wasn't much of a reaction but hopefully actually providing >>>>>> the patch might make the difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> You'll now see something like: >>>>>> >>>>>> 9.2 / 9.3 / current (9.4) >>>>>> >>>>>> at the top of the page, with "current" linking /docs/current >>>>>> and "9.4" linking /docs/9.4. >>>>>> >>>>>> For SEO purposes I think it would actually be better to elide >>>>>> the numbered-version altogether, so people will have to do extra work >>>>>> *not* to link to /docs/current/, but I figured that would turn into >>>>>> a bikeshed, so this less intrusive version is what I'm sending. >>>>> >>>>> Bump. There's been no response to this, does the silence imply rejection >>>>> or just very low priority? >>>> >>>> I think this is a good idea, and obviously so does Dave. >>>> >>> >>> I'll bump periodically until it goes live or someone tells me to stop... >> >> Sorry for this taking so long - but I now have applied PATCH 2/2, I >> didnt bother applying the fixtures one due to multiple issues (some >> preexisting): >> >> * added hunk in the patch clearly was confused about 9.0 vs 8.0 >> * random whitespace added to some lines >> * the entire current fixture file is kinda outdated wrt the current data >> model and needs much bigger rejiggering... >> >> >> thanks for the patch! >> >> >> Stefan >> > > Just to set things straight: > > - The trailing space wasn't added, it was copy-pasted from the rest of > the file which has it everywhere. heh - doesnt make it any better :) > > - I wasn't confused about 8.0 vs. 9.0, the fixture is simply *that* old. > It doesn't matter if the data is "correct" (and it won't be, in a year > or 5), but it needs datums that cover the data model or you can't test > your changes. well citing a part of the diff: + "pk": 6, + "model": "core.version", + "fields": { + "relnotes": "release.html#RELEASE-8-0-21", + "tree": "9.0", + "testing" : 1, + "supported": false, + "reldate": "2009-03-17", + "eoldate": "2010-10-01", + "firstreldate": "2009-03-17", + "latestminor": 21 "tree" -> "9.0" and "relnotes" -> "release.html#RELEASE-8-0-21 (as well as "latestminor" -> "21" feel completely wrong in that combination :) > > Guess why I was apprehensive about asking for an update and waiting for > someone to find the time. :) > > - Yes, the whole fixture file is really hopelessly out of date and > useless for testing, so If you're going to update it with live data > , great, but if not please reconsider the patch - I spent about as much > time fixing things so I could test my (trivial) change as the change itself. I'm actually working on a more complete fix to the fixture file now... Stefan
On 11/04/2015 11:19 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > On 11/04/2015 10:06 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >> On 11/04/2015 09:17 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >>> On 10/21/2015 06:45 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >>>> On 10/21/2015 05:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>>> Amir Rohan wrote: >>>>>> On 10/05/2015 01:57 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >>>>>>> I previously suggested this could help SEO: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560614CA.1080304@mail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There wasn't much of a reaction but hopefully actually providing >>>>>>> the patch might make the difference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You'll now see something like: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 9.2 / 9.3 / current (9.4) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> at the top of the page, with "current" linking /docs/current >>>>>>> and "9.4" linking /docs/9.4. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For SEO purposes I think it would actually be better to elide >>>>>>> the numbered-version altogether, so people will have to do extra work >>>>>>> *not* to link to /docs/current/, but I figured that would turn into >>>>>>> a bikeshed, so this less intrusive version is what I'm sending. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bump. There's been no response to this, does the silence imply rejection >>>>>> or just very low priority? >>>>> >>>>> I think this is a good idea, and obviously so does Dave. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'll bump periodically until it goes live or someone tells me to stop... >>> >>> Sorry for this taking so long - but I now have applied PATCH 2/2, I >>> didnt bother applying the fixtures one due to multiple issues (some >>> preexisting): >>> >>> * added hunk in the patch clearly was confused about 9.0 vs 8.0 >>> * random whitespace added to some lines >>> * the entire current fixture file is kinda outdated wrt the current data >>> model and needs much bigger rejiggering... >>> >>> >>> thanks for the patch! >>> >>> >>> Stefan >>> >> >> Just to set things straight: >> >> - The trailing space wasn't added, it was copy-pasted from the rest of >> the file which has it everywhere. > > heh - doesnt make it any better :) > Well hopefully you either enforce coding style consistently, or you don't. which is it? :) >> >> - I wasn't confused about 8.0 vs. 9.0, the fixture is simply *that* old. >> It doesn't matter if the data is "correct" (and it won't be, in a year >> or 5), but it needs datums that cover the data model or you can't test >> your changes. > > well citing a part of the diff: > ... > "tree" -> "9.0" and "relnotes" -> "release.html#RELEASE-8-0-21 (as well > as "latestminor" -> "21" feel completely wrong in that combination :) > The documentation isn't there when you bootstrap the environment anyway, and latestminor isn't used anywhere in the UI that I've seen, but yes, that's wrong. The problem I did find a hinderance was all the missing fields / value choices which made for blank template renderings. >> >> Guess why I was apprehensive about asking for an update and waiting for >> someone to find the time. :) >> >> - Yes, the whole fixture file is really hopelessly out of date and >> useless for testing, so If you're going to update it with live data >> , great, but if not please reconsider the patch - I spent about as much >> time fixing things so I could test my (trivial) change as the change itself. > > I'm actually working on a more complete fix to the fixture file now... > Glad to hear it! Not to jump over you or anything, but the other webapp is in pretty good shape wrt to getting started (self-contained doc, clear bootstrap procedure...), ifyou get a chance to bring this one up to par while you're at it, I would have thanked you a month ago. If you'll pardon my tense-mixing subjunctive. Amir