Rename repo to nodejs.org

[Fishrock123]

We should do this soon, and rename the old one to something else.

cc @nodejs/website, @mikeal

[fhemberger]

How about nodejs.org-archive, like the old node-code?

[robertkowalski]

+1 good idea

Am Samstag, 12. September 2015 schrieb Frederic Hemberger :

How about nodejs.org-archive, like the old node-code?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#147 (comment)
.

[joepie91]

One concern: if you rename the new repository to what the old repository was called, you'd cause linkrot - anything pointing at the nodejs.org repository would suddenly be pointing at the wrong repo, ie. causing dead links.

Perhaps a better approach would be to rename it to nodejs.org-v2 or something along those lines? Then it'd still be clear what the newest repository is, without breaking the redirects that (I believe) GitHub sets when renaming a repository.

[Fishrock123]

The same thing happened with the io.js to node move.

I'd prefer to go with what makes the most sense for the current repo, which would be to rename this to nodejs.org. :/

Ideally we would have renamed the old site before moving it over here.

[joepie91]

I'd say it's pretty important not to break existing links, personally. There should be plenty of ways to name the new repository without causing confusion.

[therebelrobot]

I'm with @Fishrock123 on this one. With the website repo, we're most concerned about people finding the current code, rather than keeping links working with a legacy version. If node itself is doing this with the io.js merge, I say keep the same mode of operation here. We can put a notice in the readme pointing to legacy versions if it's a big issue.

As for naming the old one, maybe legacy.nodejs.org or nodejs.org-legacy? archive makes me think of old versions of node rather than the website.

[joepie91]

Notices wouldn't help for that, though. For example, if one cross-references an issue on the website repository from another repository (or site!), that link will just end up in a 404 (or, worse, in an unrelated ticket). Those most affected by it would never get to see the notice.

Issues and commits are technical documentation, and breaking references to that really isn't a good idea. I don't really see the issue with a different name, either - it'd be fairly trivial and time-cheap to find a different name (nodejs.org-site, ...), and avoid the collision altogether, whereas the cost of creating a collision is rather high.

[iancrowther]

Is there a mechanism for users to report dead links? I just raised a similar concern to @joepie91

#153

[fhemberger]

There's a link on the footer to report issues for the website as well as node.js itself.

@therebelrobot: We have nodejs/node-v0.x-archive and nodejs/node-convergence-archive for old code, so IMHO it would make sense to rename the old website repo nodejs/nodejs.org-archive as well.

At least according to Google, there don't seem to be pages linking to the old repository:
https://www.google.com/?q=link:github.com%2Fjoyent%2Fnodejs.org
https://www.google.com/?q=link:github.com%2Fnodejs%2Fnodejs.org

[phillipj]

Looking at github's own stats for referring sites against the nodejs.org repo the last 14 days, shows Google sends alot of users though.

IMO we should go ahead and rename the repos asap to stop confusing end-users and new contributors about which repo/project are currently deployed to nodejs.org.

[phillipj]

The traffic against the current nodejs.org repo is quickly declining. Updated stats, still the last 14 days:

👍 for @fhemberger suggestions

• nodejs.org -> nodejs/nodejs.org-archive
• new.nodejs.org -> nodejs/nodejs.org

Are we ready to do this @nodejs/website?

[joepie91]

I do want to reiterate again that this change will permanently and irrevocably break documentation references, and this is bad. Google does not necessarily show the entirety of these references, and it should not be assumed that there are none.

It is very easy to avoid this, by renaming to a repository name that isn't identical but still obviously the right one.

[Fishrock123]

this change will permanently and irrevocably break documentation references, and this is bad.

The longer this repo remains, the worse it will be. Also, I'd like to know what documentation references link to the repo of the nodejs.org website?

[joepie91]

The longer this repo remains, the worse it will be.

That is a reason to accelerate discussion of a new name, not to accelerate the renaming to a reused name.

Also, I'd like to know what documentation references link to the repo of the nodejs.org website?

This is not a question that can be conclusively answered, which is why it should not be assumed to be 'none'. There can exist references anywhere, publicly, in internal documentation, and so forth.

[Dev0n]

I think @joepie91 is raising a valid point here. I recall the SailsJS docs going through a similar situation that resulted in all the links from Google being broken.

[mikeal]

what documentation is in this repo and why is it in this repo?

[joepie91]

@mikeal The repository - with its issues, commits, and so on - is documentation, it doesn't just contain it. All of these things are technical documentation in that they document the history (and often the reason) behind certain decisions, changes, and so on.

[Fishrock123]

Ok we should rename the old repo to an archive ASAP though. I am unable to do that today I think.

[mikeal]

That history is only a few months old, I wouldn't worry too much about it for this repo (I would be more concerned if it was another repo). I don't think there's a huge number of links to content here that isn't somewhat ephemeral (we had a lot of people pointing to issues to help us get ready for launch which is now completed).

[joepie91]

@mikeal Even for a small amount of possible links, it doesn't seem worth the potential issues. Giving it a slightly different name is a practically free solution that just makes the problem go away 100% (as GitHub automatically maintains redirects as long as you don't reuse names, if I'm not mistaken).

[bnb]

Didn't we already do this once by moving from joyent/nodejs.org to nodejs/nodejs.org? If so, there's only a few months of links, which is by no means as important as joyent/nodejs.org was with years and years of links.

It would be preferable to make a clean break now and solve the problem before any more links are created, both to the confusing nodejs/new.nodejs.org and nodejs/nodejs.org.

@joepie91 If you feel this still needs to be changed, it can be the first choice of the Website WG admin group. //cc #228

[mikeal]

@bnb the issue is that there's an active forward from joyent/node.js to nodejs/node.js and we'll break all of those old links if we rename over it.

[bnb]

joyent/node.js? Aren't we talking about joyent/nodejs.org and nodejs/nodejs.org?

[mikeal]

@bnb ya, sorry, misspelled :)

[bnb]

@mikeal Ah, okay.

The problem with this is that the code in this repository will, from now until any future that we can predict, be posted to nodejs.org. It's flat out misleading to have a repository that's named that, which doesn't actually represent it. Further, changing this repository's name to something slightly different than nodejs.org will only compound the problem, as people will have to actively look for the right one after finding the wrong one.

It's highly preferable to start building new links to both, with correct naming, than continuing to build unclear links that will likely end up being changed.

[bnb]

Also worth noting that every contributor and owner of this repository that has commented has +1ed this idea.

[phillipj]

Ok we should rename the old repo to an archive ASAP though.

Could we please go through with that part asap? There's no dispute on that one as far as I see it.

[mikeal]

Will renaming this break anything with the deployment system?

[mikeal]

old repo renamed to nodejs.org-archive

[stevemao]

+1

[bnb]

@rvagg Is @mikeal's question something you can answer, or is there someone else who would answer it?

[csabapalfi]

Was just looking through this and this line definitely needs updating: nodejs/build/setup/www/resources/scripts/build-site.sh#L22

[rvagg]

yes, the github webhook receiver will have problems with a name change, the git stuff in build-site.sh should be fine because github will still serve the right thing, but it should be updated anyway

whoever does the renaming should grab me on IRC or some other non-github medium and sync with me on it, next couple of days are pretty terrible for me though so I'd appreciate a bit of a delay

[csabapalfi]

Ah, of course, github deals with renames nicely. Just double-checked this myself with a different repo and cloning using the old name works. Can see what @rvagg meant: /setup/www/resources/config/github-webhook.json#L9 is the one breaking I think.

[bnb]

@rvagg Take your time. If nobody else is able to hop in when you're available, I'll do it, schedule permitting.

[phillipj]

Now that the old repo has been renamed nodejs.org-archive, are we okay with the repo names as is and can close this issue?

[ghost]

@phillipj ARE we okay with the repo names as is? as @bnb said, every collaborator commenting here has given their +1, so shouldn't we get something working here, such as opening PRs on the breaking repos/files, so that we can eventually rename this repo?

[phillipj]

ARE we okay with the repo names as is?

I'm all for renaming, but as this repo has not been renamed to nodejs.org by the owners yet, it doesn't seem to happen either. IMO the most important change was to get "archived" into the name of the old repo, which hopefully sends a message to those few users still visiting that repo.

so shouldn't we get something working here, such as opening PRs on the breaking repos/files, so that we can eventually rename this repo?

Got any ideas on what's needed @sup?

[rvagg]

Renamed, everything (PRs, github remotes etc.) should redirect just fine. I've also updated the webhook endpoint on the web server but I'd appreciate if, during the next merge, someone could check that it actually goes live and ping me if it doesn't.

[mikeal]

Sweet! Thanks Rod :)

[stevemao]

Perfect. Thanks @rvagg :)