On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 09:15:46AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > I disagree. A lot of users don't upgrade right away, so making the > docs harder to find is a disservice. If you want to get rid of > something, Rawhide seems like the better candidate as many fewer > people actually use it. I don't think it'd actually be harder. Look at Python documentation — the top level links all go to https://docs.python.org/3/, which defaults to "latest", but you can choose earlier versions from the dropdown. We have that same thing with Antora, but two entry points. Also though: that versioned documentation contains three things: 1. Release notes — clearly useful as versioned) 2. The installation guide — theoretically, the installer is tied to releases, but... it hasn't changed significantly in _years_ and new changes are not even prototyped. Do we really need a versioned ... version of this? Maybe Install Guide is its own thing at the top level. 3. System Administrator's Guide — actually, I think this should be entirely decomposed and put into Quick Docs on a topic-by-topic basis. > > 4. I'm unsure about front page bubbles, but -- I think we should put all of > > the Edition / spin documentation into one three-level hierarchy instead > > of lots of two-level ones. > I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you elaborate? Yes. Right now, once you click on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-server/, you're in that space, and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/iot/ is another, each with unique left menus. What if we put them all into one unified menu, with the edition names as top-level menu items on the left menu? > > > 5. I still kind of like "Fedora Project" as a little mini-site, but maybe > > _all_ of the rest of Fedora Council, Engineering Teams, Mindshare Teams, > > D&I, PgMT should be put into one? > > I think I see what you're saying, and that makes sense. Basically a > unified listing of teams? If that's what you mean, then I'm on board. > If you don't already know about Fedora's org structure, then the docs > make it harder to find what you're looking for. Yes, exactly. > > 6. Not sure where stuff like Gaming should go. > Are we talking about using Games or participating in the Games SIG? I guess it is the later. But where would user documentation produced by that team go? > > 7. Packaging guidelines and to-be-added Legal... same. > Probably in a grouping under an Engineering Teams heading for > packaging guidelines. Legal...is more expansive. Maybe with broader > things like Council and DEI? Sure. :) > > 8. Outreachy docs should be removed, since they're not on the docs site. > Why does it matter if it's on the docs site? It's still documentation. Because we're steering people back into the wiki, perpetuating the confusion of our current "where are the docs" story. > The docs page should be about the content, not the tooling. Now if you > want to make the case that we should remove it because it points to a > 2017 wiki page, that's another matter entirely. Or to put it another way: I don't think the docs.fpo front page should serve as an index to the wiki, even if that part of the wiki is kept up to date. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ docs mailing list -- docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to docs-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
