On 15/07/2020 14:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 12:03, Jonny Grant <jg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 15/07/2020 10:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 10:23, Jonny Grant <jg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Would be good if the version be added to the pager and even the URL as "beta". >>> >>> Absolutely not "beta" because there are no "beta" versions of GCC, so >>> that would be worse than it is now. >> >> May I ask what you would suggest as an update to the URL. > > I wouldn't change the URL at all. A page header or footer with > relevant version info (possibly automatically inserted by the > webserver) would be much better. Some browsers are moving away from > displaying URLs, and some users don't read them, so if you consider > the information important, hiding it in the URL is a bad idea. > > But if changing the URL was necessary, I'd choose something that isn't > a lie. The development trunk is not a "beta" release or "beta" > quality, so it makes no sense to put "beta" there. > >>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Beta > "A Beta phase generally begins when the software is feature complete > but likely to contain a number of known or unknown bugs." > Nope, that's not the case for the dev trunk. > "The process of delivering a beta version to the users is called beta > release and this is typically the first time that the software is > available outside of the organization that developed it." > Neither is that. > "dev" or "git" may be enough in the URL. URLs aren't disappearing just yet. Maybe someone can add the version to the page like GDB has? Footer is a bit hidden away when it's meant to be clear it's not the stable release documentation. I'd be tempted to suggest adding the URL folder to robots.txt to prevent the development documentation coming up first on google. Jonny
