[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: We need to talk about SourceForge

From: Carnë Draug
Subject: Re: We need to talk about SourceForge
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:02:53 +0100

On 17 June 2015 at 22:02, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 06/17/2015 07:55 AM, Carnë Draug wrote:
>> On 16 June 2015 at 21:44, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> I copied the files here:
>>>    http://octave.org/doxygen/VERSION/html
>>> where VERSION may be 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 4.0, or 4.1.
>> That's great.  Thank you.  By the way, I kept the doxygen stuff within
>> a deeper "html" level because that's how it was done before and I didn't
>> want to break links.  But since we are moving to octave.org, we could
>> drop the "html" directory.
> I removed the html directories.

I have completely removed the doxygen docs from OF now.  Took me a while
but seems I now got the right mod_rewrite incantation to have users
redirected to the exact same page in octave.org (instead of redirected
to the doxygen index page).

Two other things:

  1. in OF we had doxygen as symlink to the latest stable doxygen docs.
    Could we havea "stable" symlink for 4.0?  This would save the trouble
    of having to keep updating links for latest documentation.

  2. we also used to have 3.9 and 3.7 while they were in development and
    then they got removed.  This caused links to break.  Maybe instead
    of 4.1 we could have "default" or "development"?  Or maybe we should
    host the development doxygen somewhere else (see below for comments
    on maybe using hydra).

>> Also, do you plan on keeping the development doxygen up to date yourself?
> I could start doing that.  Maybe we could automate it.

I've seen many other projects doing it as part of their continuous
integration.  My guess is that hydra could be configured to do it (as
it does for the code coverage).  It seems like a waste of energy / cpu cycles
to do it at every commit though.

>> That's good to know.  And how are we about traffic?
> The hosting service I am using is fine with serving HTML files.  That's what
> they do primarily.  But for larger files like the Windows installer, we
> probably need another place.

I hope that the windows installers won't cause a lot of traffic since most
users should be downloading the latest release which is hosted at GNU now.
The Mac binaries are far larger in size (and need by the users).

Do we know anyone, that owns or works at, a hosting company that could
potentially sponsor us by serving this?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]