Re: Doc search: update to version 2.15, use it in the "site:" part (issue 5530043)

[Pavel Roskin]

Quoting Graham Percival <address@hidden>:

> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 02:10:24PM +0000, address@hidden wrote:
> > I totally share your sentiment, but we depend on an external entity
> > here, which we cannot control.  Suppose we go from 2.15.x to 2.17.x and
> > put the documentation under "v2.17".  For some time, Google won't have
> > the new location in its index, so the search would get nothing.  It
> > would be better to keep "v2.15" in the search for a while and have a
> > redirection from "v2.15" to "v2.17".
>
> Great point!  Could you add a comment to this effect to the top of
> this file?  there's no way that I'll remember otherwise.

I believe the comment belongs to some other file that describes the  
release process.

If we keep things as is, the version change in the search would need  
to be done some time after the release.  I don't know how fast Google  
would index the new pages.

In the ideal case (which means changing the site layout), everything  
should be done at the time of the release and no "alarms" should be  
needed for additional changes.

> > Speaking of redirections, I would
> > prefer that Lilypond had just two versions of its documentation online -
> > latest "stable" and latest "development".  "v2.12" and "v2.14" shoould
> > redirect to "stable", "v2.15" should redirect to "development".
>
> We want to keep all stable docs available for historical reasons,
> but I'm not opposed to directing people to
>   /doc/stable/
>   /doc/development/
> rather than vX.Y.  If you feel like looking into this, the
> htaccess is in Documentation/web/server/

When searching for Lilypond related topics on Google, I constantly get  
directed to v2.12 unless I add "v2.15" to the search line.  But I  
often want to find information both on the Lilypond site and  
elsewhere, so adding "v2.15" would lose the external links.

I'm not against hosting historic documentation, but it would be nice  
to "deemphasize" is somehow.

--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin