Community
Participate
Working Groups
This site is quite old and--I suspect (confirmation required)--underused. I recommend that we set up a redirect to the current simultaneous release, or perhaps to the wiki, and retire/archive this directory.
I've changed the title to consider other simultaneous release sites and have sent out a note to cross-platform asking for community input. How about a redirect to http://wiki.eclipse.org/Simultaneous_Release ?
Cool URIs don't change ... that's heading/conclusion of w3c doc ... http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html I suggest reading through that before you decide (but ... I personally don't feel too strongly about it).
To be more explicit ... I think the content should be left there ... if it was used, in an old book or tutorial, it might be pretty confusing is a user was automatically redirected somewhere else. And, like our code, you never know how someone might be using it ... for example, someone might, in a book or article about webdesign, say "For an example of how EF pages used to look, see [callisto page] " I supposed the "deluxe solution" would be to edit the page, with an initial sentence that would say "For current information, see [the sim rel page]". Good luck.
Thanks for the link, David. But I'm not suggesting that we kill the URIs, I'm suggesting that we archive the mostly time-sensitive and expired content and redirect the valuable URIs to a far less time-sensitive and likely more valuable location. Somebody who stumbles across a link to /callisto really needs to be told that there are newer releases available. As part of this, we can expand the Simultaneous Release wiki page if that will be helpful. Though I'm hard-pressed to come up with anything specific at the moment.
> http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html "What to leave out File name extension. This is a very common one. "cgi", even ".html" is something which will change. You may not be using HTML for that page in 20 years time, but you might want today's links to it to still be valid." ... from a page that ends with .html. It's do as I say, not as I do I guess.
I maintain some of the old Eclipse releases for IBM and I frequently go to the old simultaneous release pages to look up various things, schedule, what was in the release, etc. If you are saying that when I go to http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Europa_Simultaneous_Release , it will automatically redirect to the latest simultaneous release, then this is a bad thing. Is there particular harm in having the old pages as an archive of previous releases? Or is it just because nobody is maintaining them?
> > ... from a page that ends with .html. It's do as I say, not as I do I guess. To be fair, to w3c authors, that's "do as they say, not as _ I _ do" :) ... their own do sites use http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI ... not sure where I originally got the ".html" from, but copied that old link from bug 99724 (where I originally pasted it with the .html extension). And, to reiterate, about this specific case I have no strong feelings ... just trying to be my usual helpful self. :)
(In reply to comment #6) > I maintain some of the old Eclipse releases for IBM and I frequently go to the > old simultaneous release pages to look up various things, schedule, what was in > the release, etc. > > If you are saying that when I go to > http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Europa_Simultaneous_Release , it will > automatically redirect to the latest simultaneous release, then this is a bad > thing. > > Is there particular harm in having the old pages as an archive of previous > releases? Or is it just because nobody is maintaining them? I'm asking strictly about the stuff on www.eclipse.org, e.g. http://www.eclipse.org/callisto These pages were created primarily for the user community (and--to some extent--the adopter community). We're in the process of planning our migration to Git and I'm trying to decide how valuable these pages contain. i.e. are they worth migrating, or should we leverage this opportunity to clean up a few things?
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > We're in the process of planning our migration to Git and I'm trying to decide > how valuable these pages contain. i.e. are they worth migrating, or should we > leverage this opportunity to clean up a few things? I am not sure what is involved with the migration but I would very much like to see these pages retained in their original form. As Anthony points out they are useful references.
My $0.02: I think they are worth keeping. Each page has the release date in a fairly prominent location, so I don't see the confusion of thinking these are the latest releases. If this is the main worry, you could add a single line at the top of each page that says, "This is an old Eclipse release. For the latest release, click <a href="http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/">here</a>." Unless these pages include very large graphic resources such as videos, I don't think they add much overhead to the Git migration process or the overall size of the resulting repos.
The consensus seems to be that we should keep them. I'm glad that we had this little chat :-) (In reply to comment #10) > My $0.02: I think they are worth keeping. Each page has the release date in a > fairly prominent location, so I don't see the confusion of thinking these are > the latest releases. Well... you don't get the mail to emo@ :-) I get a few emails every week from people who are having trouble installing some plug-in into some old version of Eclipse. These people are getting links to old stuff from somewhere... > If this is the main worry, you could add a single line at > the top of each page that says, "This is an old Eclipse release. For the latest > release, click <a href="http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/">here</a>." +1 > Unless these pages include very large graphic resources such as videos, I don't > think they add much overhead to the Git migration process or the overall size > of the resulting repos. They certainly don't add much. I just see this as an opportunity to do a little housekeeping and this seemed like an obvious target. Everything we put on the website ends up being a liability of some form. In this case, it is potentially stale information that we need to support at least in some minor capacity moving forward. Even if it's just the 30 minutes (SWAG) that it's going to take to move this stuff into Git, and setup scripts to push its content to the website. It all adds up. Regardless... I've come around and agree that these are worth keeping.
(In reply to comment #11) > > My $0.02: I think they are worth keeping. Each page has the release date in a > > fairly prominent location, so I don't see the confusion of thinking these are > > the latest releases. > > Well... you don't get the mail to emo@ :-) If mail is coming in to emo@ then the fact that these old pages are "old" is not obvious enough. And that brings us to another issue: we (the EMO) are good at creating these nice pages about a specific event in time but we often fail to circle back and update the pages once the event is over.
