Django

Code

Ticket #8701 (closed: fixed)

Opened 3 months ago

Last modified 3 months ago

Fix references to old doc

Reported by: julien Assigned to: jacob
Milestone: 1.0 Component: Documentation
Version: SVN Keywords:
Cc: Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 Patch needs improvement: 0

Description

I've counted 33 references to the old doc (http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation), either in the code or in the refactored doc. Those should be fixed before release.

Attachments

8701.diff (3.8 kB) - added by thejaswi_puthraya on 08/30/08 05:40:10.
removed many documented references, few more to go
8701-v2.diff (9.3 kB) - added by richardb on 08/30/08 16:22:36.
Another patch; more complete.
8701.couple-more-old-doc-refs.diff (0.9 kB) - added by julien on 09/03/08 03:58:15.

Change History

08/30/08 05:40:10 changed by thejaswi_puthraya

  • attachment 8701.diff added.

removed many documented references, few more to go

08/30/08 05:43:01 changed by thejaswi_puthraya

  • needs_better_patch changed.
  • stage changed from Unreviewed to Accepted.
  • needs_tests changed.
  • needs_docs changed.

Some references still exist to topics like abstract base classes, multi-table inheritance which have not been documented in the new docs.

08/30/08 05:45:25 changed by thejaswi_puthraya

#8533 has the list of undocumented features.

08/30/08 07:07:29 changed by patrickf

hi thejaswi_puthraya, it appears that the patch that you submitted is... faulty. It is prefixed with a/ - so it cannot be applied cleanly.

Is this intentional, and are you intending to go through all of the documentation to clear out all the references to the old docs - as you have not done all yet?

Please advise - or join us on IRC - django-sprint...

thanks... patrickf

08/30/08 07:38:10 changed by richardb

thejaswi_puthraya: it's worth checking http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/contributing/#patch-style.

The 'standard' patch style uses svn diff. Your patch was probably created using mercurial/git (thanks cramm for that tip).

08/30/08 09:04:39 changed by richardb

  • owner changed from nobody to richardb.

08/30/08 16:22:36 changed by richardb

  • attachment 8701-v2.diff added.

Another patch; more complete.

(follow-up: ↓ 7 ) 08/30/08 16:32:26 changed by richardb

  • has_patch set to 1.

Added a new patch (8701-v2.diff).

This is a longer version of 8701.diff:

- found more references to old documentation location.

- I've left alone old-doc references to subjects missing in the new docs (ex: model inheritance). #8533 covers this subject, changing the links from old doc to new doc should probably be part of a patch for that ticket. I'm adding a comment to #8533 to remember this task.

- I've left alone links to 0.96 documentation, as I assume that its location is not changing. Please correct me if I am wrong!

(in reply to: ↑ 6 ) 08/30/08 18:36:00 changed by julien

Replying to richardb:

- I've left alone links to 0.96 documentation, as I assume that its location is not changing. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Yes, Jacob just confirmed that: "... the old docs will stay where they are; 1.0+ will be in the new place." http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/8375d99c2216470f#

09/01/08 12:11:54 changed by richardb

  • owner deleted.

09/02/08 11:42:14 changed by jacob

  • status changed from new to closed.
  • resolution set to fixed.

(In [8857]) Cleaned up a bunch of minor doc stuff:

  • Removed flatpages/redirects README; no other contrib apps have those.
  • Cleaned up top-level README to be more readable.
  • Removed outdated references to old docs (Fixes #8701)

09/03/08 03:58:15 changed by julien

  • attachment 8701.couple-more-old-doc-refs.diff added.

09/03/08 04:08:41 changed by julien

  • status changed from closed to reopened.
  • resolution deleted.

I spotted a couple more outdated references to the old docs. See the attached patch.

I think those are the last ones, excluding the references to the previous releases (0.95/0.96) and the model examples. Concerning the latter, I'm wondering if that's actually intentional. I've just asked the question on the dev-list: http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/2b6377bfe5e25170#

09/03/08 07:38:08 changed by jacob

In the future please open new tickets in situations like this - it's easy for us to follow what's going on when we don't recycle closed tickets. I'll clean this up today, though; thanks for the patch.

09/03/08 07:38:17 changed by jacob

  • owner set to jacob.
  • status changed from reopened to new.

09/03/08 07:38:22 changed by jacob

  • status changed from new to assigned.

09/03/08 15:23:18 changed by jacob

  • status changed from assigned to closed.
  • resolution set to fixed.

(In [8941]) Fixed #8701, a couple of bad links in the docs.

Add/Change #8701 (Fix references to old doc)




Change Properties
Action