-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add previous API versions to website #489
Comments
So in practice you would have a directory structure like
where and then have a |
One drawback of that approach for GitHub-hosted project sites specifically is that it will require @non to create and maintain a separate We take a slightly different approach (in a one-off way) with one particular set of old docs we didn't want to break for Twitter Util, where we use canonical links to the new docs in the old docs. At least in theory this means we continue to get SEO credit for old links without having them indexed. It would be more painful to do this in a non-one-off way, though. The fact that the standard library, Play, etc. still haven't gotten this right after all these years suggests that there is a maintenance cost, even if it's small, but I'm definitely not opposed if @non and others want to pay it. |
This is the standard libraries
I reckon - between all of us - we could better that 😉 |
@inthenow But that's the annoying thing about situations like this: half the time there's some incredibly elaborate story about why some painful issue hasn't been fixed, and the other half it's just that nobody's ever bothered (let's hope this is a case of the latter). |
@travisbrown LOL 👍 |
This will be fixed as of #4160. We are now publishing unidoc artifacts to maven which for every version can be browsed at javadoc.io. |
I previously discussed with @travisbrown if previous API versions should be published to the website. The downside was that search engines tag on old versions.
I'm resurrecting this topic based on a chat with @ochrons, as the solution appears to be "just a question of couple of soft-links and a robots.txt"
Given this, I'm +1 for having the previous versions. Any other opinions/votes?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: