[RFC] Remove glossary #5462
Comments
|
Just in case someone is wondering what this is all about: The glossary can be seen at http://symfony.com/doc/current/glossary.html. |
|
Oh, I just found where it is linked: http://symfony.com/doc/current/genindex.html (if a term is used in the glossary) |
|
Anyway, as a last comment in this row. ;) Unless Javier reveals that there are a lot of people visiting the glossary, I will be absolutely 👍 to remove it. It's completely outdated and didn't receive any love. |
|
Let's remove it. When I first started with RST, I thought it was a neat idea, but I don't think anyone is using it - the fact that there have been probably zero pull requests to this section shows how many people are using it. |
|
During the last 12 months, the Glossary page has been the 230th most popular doc page. Its traffic is marginal, so I think it's safe to remove it. |
|
@javiereguiluz Thanks, do we need to wait for you to remove references to it on the web site first to not break the build process? |
wouterj
added
the
hasPR
This PR was submitted for the 2.3 branch but it was merged into the 2.7 branch instead (closes symfony#5464). Discussion ---------- Removed the glossary | Q | A | --- | --- | Doc fix? | yes | New docs? | no | Applies to | all | Fixed tickets | symfony#5462 It's funny that 99% of the `:term:` usages were located in sentences describing a term. So we didn't loose any information there. In some cases, I've tweaked the sentence a bit not loose any important information. As for the genindex mentioned by @xabbuh in the issue, I believe this one is created automatically by Sphinx based on all `.. index::` directives in the documentation. When removing the glossary, the genindex will automatically not include the terms anymore (/cc @javiereguiluz please confirm). Commits ------- 1c05aad Removed the glossary
It has recieved it's last word-changing change on September 18th, 2013. The article itself doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere on symfony.com (doc index, navigation, ...). The
:term:roles linking to the glossary have not been added since I'm reviewing PRs.In other words: It hasn't recieved any love from us since I joined the docs.
I don't know about the amount of visitors (/cc @javiereguiluz), but I would like to propose the article. I think all terms are covered with just as nice (or nicer) descriptions in the related book/cookbook pages, meaning people are directly on the good page to read more about the topic.
/cc @xabbuh @weaverryan
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: