Wiki pages that apply to only one release

[Rocco Stanzione]

On Tuesday 06 June 2006 2:11 am, Corey Burger wrote:
> There are a fair number of wiki pages that only apply to one release,
> mostly becuase they deal with a hardware issue that has been solved in
> a later release. After Warty EOLed, I went around and cleaned up
> reference to it from our docs. This was an annoying task, because I
> had to go and find each page. Therefor I would like to propose a
> process of tagging pages for releases. This does raise a number of
> issues:
>
> 1. Do we tag all pages or only pages that are for a specific release?

It will often be hard to tell if a page applies only to the current release, 
unless it addresses an issue that's already been dealt with.  For example, 
the pages cropping up right now may address Dapper issues that will no longer 
exist in Edgy, but for the most part we can't know that yet.  I think it 
makes sense, then, to tag all pages, or all pages that are Ubuntu-specific.

> 2. Do we use the name or the number of the release (Hoary vs 5.04) in
> the category name

On IRC, in the forums, and on the wiki, I've noticed that users seem to refer 
to releases by name far more often than version number.  I do the same 
myself.  I also remember the name Warty but not its version number.  Unless 
this observation is way off, let's go with release names - it also avoids 
dealing with dots in the category name.

> 3. Do we all agree that removing docs for non-security supported
> releases is a good thing?

I usually find that moving things out of the way proves to be a better idea 
than deleting them, unless the problem I'm solving is a disk space issue.  
There can still be valuable information in documents whose purpose is to 
solve an issue that no longer exists: the discussion of the issue can help me 
learn something important about whatever had the problem.  Search engines can 
take a long time to remove links to the deleted pages.  Is it possible to 
create an "Archived" supercategory and keep it accessible without having it 
in the way?

> 4. Any other issues I forgot about?

Off the top of my head, no.

Thanks,

Rocco Stanzione