[Python-ideas] docs.python.org

[Yury Selivanov]

Hi,

I remember a discussion to make docs.python.org pointed to py3k docs by default.

Are we still going to do that?

-

Yury

[Andrew Svetlov]

+1 for switching default

> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python...@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>



--
Thanks,
Andrew Svetlov
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python...@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

[Nick Coghlan]

Eventually, but not just yet :)

Definitely by 3.4, but maybe earlier if it seems appropriate.

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Sent from my phone, thus the relative brevity :)

[Ned Batchelder]

Before we do anything to make py3 the default, let's please provide a navigation bar that shows the version, and makes it easy to switch between versions?  Py2 is still vastly more used.

--Ned.

[Ryan D Hiebert]

On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:55 AM, Ned Batchelder <n...@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
> Before we do anything to make py3 the default, let's please provide a navigation bar that shows the version, and makes it easy to switch between versions? Py2 is still vastly more used.

+1 I can't count how many times I've been on the right page, but the wrong version, and need to switch.

[Chris Jerdonek]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ryan D Hiebert <ry...@ryanhiebert.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:55 AM, Ned Batchelder <n...@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
>> Before we do anything to make py3 the default, let's please provide a navigation bar that shows the version, and makes it easy to switch between versions? Py2 is still vastly more used.
>
> +1 I can't count how many times I've been on the right page, but the wrong version, and need to switch.

I believe the primary issue filed for this is here:

http://bugs.python.org/issue8040

--Chris

[Yury Selivanov]

On 2012-10-26, at 7:55 AM, Ned Batchelder <n...@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:

> On 10/25/2012 7:50 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I remember a discussion to make docs.python.org pointed to py3k docs by default.
>>
>> Are we still going to do that?
>>
>
> Before we do anything to make py3 the default, let's please provide a navigation bar that shows the version, and makes it easy to switch between versions? Py2 is still vastly more used.

OK.

I've just created an issue http://bugs.python.org/issue16331
with a working patch attached to it.

Docs will look like this:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/21052/python/p3_doc_dd.png

Please check it out!

Thanks,

[Christian Heimes]

Am 26.10.2012 01:50, schrieb Yury Selivanov:
> Hi,
>

> I remember a discussion to make docs.python.org <http://docs.python.org>

> pointed to py3k docs by default.
>
> Are we still going to do that?

How about http://docs2.python.org for the latest stable version of
Python 2.x and http://docs3.python.org for the latest stable of Python
3.x? The py3k docs traditionally point to the latest development version.

Christian

[Yury Selivanov]

Christian,

On 2012-10-26, at 1:42 PM, Christian Heimes <chri...@python.org> wrote:
> Am 26.10.2012 01:50, schrieb Yury Selivanov:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I remember a discussion to make docs.python.org <http://docs.python.org>
>> pointed to py3k docs by default.
>>
>> Are we still going to do that?
>
> How about http://docs2.python.org for the latest stable version of
> Python 2.x and http://docs3.python.org for the latest stable of Python
> 3.x? The py3k docs traditionally point to the latest development version.

As for me, I like simple 'docs.python.org'.
The rest of UX is easy to ensure with a little JS ;)
Take a look at my patch attached to the issue 16331.

-
Yury

[Bruce Leban]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Yury Selivanov <yseliv...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2012-10-26, at 1:42 PM, Christian Heimes <chri...@python.org> wrote:

>> Are we still going to do that?
>
> How about http://docs2.python.org for the latest stable version of
> Python 2.x and http://docs3.python.org for the latest stable of Python
> 3.x? The py3k docs traditionally point to the latest development version.

As for me, I like simple 'docs.python.org'.
The rest of UX is easy to ensure with a little JS ;)
Take a look at my patch attached to the issue 16331.

There are tons of links out there that would break if you switched to docs2 and docs3. JS is better. And it would accommodate a feature where a user can set a preference of what version of python documentation they want to see rather than defaulting to 2.7 or 3.x.

--- Bruce

Follow me: http://www.twitter.com/Vroo http://www.vroospeak.com

 

[Christian Heimes]

Am 26.10.2012 19:56, schrieb Bruce Leban:
> There are tons of links out there that would break if you switched to
> docs2 and docs3. JS is better. And it would accommodate a feature where
> a user can set a preference of what version of python documentation they
> want to see rather than defaulting to 2.7 or 3.x.

We can have the FQDNs additionally to http://docs.python.org and have
them as mnemonic for the correct Python 2.x or 3.x docs. It's easy to
create an Apache rewrite rule that redirects the user to the proper
documents.

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} =docs3.python.org [NC]
RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://docs.python.org/release/3.3.0/$1 [R=301,L]

Yury, I'm not arguing against your JS UI -- I actually like it. I like
to have both.

Christian

[Yury Selivanov]

On 2012-10-26, at 2:04 PM, Christian Heimes <chri...@python.org> wrote:

> Am 26.10.2012 19:56, schrieb Bruce Leban:
>> There are tons of links out there that would break if you switched to
>> docs2 and docs3. JS is better. And it would accommodate a feature where
>> a user can set a preference of what version of python documentation they
>> want to see rather than defaulting to 2.7 or 3.x.
>
> We can have the FQDNs additionally to http://docs.python.org and have
> them as mnemonic for the correct Python 2.x or 3.x docs. It's easy to
> create an Apache rewrite rule that redirects the user to the proper
> documents.
>
> RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} =docs3.python.org [NC]
> RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://docs.python.org/release/3.3.0/$1 [R=301,L]
>
> Yury, I'm not arguing against your JS UI -- I actually like it. I like
> to have both.

Thanks ;)

The thing about 'doc2' & 'doc3' urls I don't like is that sooner or later
users will use python 3. There is no future for python 2. That's why
I think that it's better to have just one main doc destination that
everybody knows, uses, and posts links to. Just my 2 cents.

-
Yury

[Mark Lawrence]

On 26/10/2012 19:09, Yury Selivanov wrote:
>
> The thing about 'doc2' & 'doc3' urls I don't like is that sooner or later
> users will use python 3. There is no future for python 2. That's why
> I think that it's better to have just one main doc destination that
> everybody knows, uses, and posts links to. Just my 2 cents.
>
> -
> Yury
>

I entirely agree with your sentiments. Complaints along the lines of
"but library xyz isn't compatible with Python 3" should be met with a
response from the Python community "what can we do to fix this
situation". A very personnal preference, but I would like to see this
happening rather than having people playing with new toys, like the
Async API. YMMV.

--
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

[Chris Jerdonek]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Yury Selivanov
<yseliv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-10-26, at 7:55 AM, Ned Batchelder <n...@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/2012 7:50 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I remember a discussion to make docs.python.org pointed to py3k docs by default.
>>>
>>> Are we still going to do that?
>>>
>>
>> Before we do anything to make py3 the default, let's please provide a navigation bar that shows the version, and makes it easy to switch between versions? Py2 is still vastly more used.
>
> OK.
>
> I've just created an issue http://bugs.python.org/issue16331
> with a working patch attached to it.

Did you see my earlier response before this message that provides a
link to an already-existing issue on this topic?

--Chris

[Yury Selivanov]

On 2012-10-26, at 4:08 PM, Chris Jerdonek <chris.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Yury Selivanov
> <yseliv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-26, at 7:55 AM, Ned Batchelder <n...@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/25/2012 7:50 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I remember a discussion to make docs.python.org pointed to py3k docs by default.
>>>>
>>>> Are we still going to do that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Before we do anything to make py3 the default, let's please provide a navigation bar that shows the version, and makes it easy to switch between versions? Py2 is still vastly more used.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> I've just created an issue http://bugs.python.org/issue16331
>> with a working patch attached to it.
>
> Did you see my earlier response before this message that provides a
> link to an already-existing issue on this topic?

Take a look at 16331. There is a open question there--which issue
should be closed now ;)

I apologize that I didn't find your issue (but I honestly tried to.)

-
Yury

[Georg Brandl]

Am 26.10.2012 19:42, schrieb Christian Heimes:
> Am 26.10.2012 01:50, schrieb Yury Selivanov:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I remember a discussion to make docs.python.org <http://docs.python.org>
>> pointed to py3k docs by default.
>>
>> Are we still going to do that?
>
> How about http://docs2.python.org for the latest stable version of
> Python 2.x and http://docs3.python.org for the latest stable of Python
> 3.x? The py3k docs traditionally point to the latest development version.

FWIW, docs3 already exists. Nobody is using it.

Georg

[Andrew Svetlov]

Maybe just because it is a simple redirect?
If python3 docs will be accessible as docs3.python.org instead
docs.pycon.org/py3k people will start to use this address?

--
Thanks,
Andrew Svetlov

[Georg Brandl]

I don't know, and I'm not fond of docs3, so I wouldn't make it more
prominent. It was requested some years ago, and since it doesn't
cause problems that way, I added it as a redirect.

Georg

[Terry Reedy]

On 10/26/2012 4:47 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Eventually, but not just yet :)

I think it should already have been done. To not feature our latest
release on the page where the latest releases have always before been
featured is to say that it is somehow not a full production-ready release.


--
Terry Jan Reedy

[Terry Reedy]

On 10/26/2012 5:09 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:

> FWIW, docs3 already exists. Nobody is using it.

I do, when I want to see the updated version instead of the older
window's help version.

--
Terry Jan Reedy

[Devin Jeanpierre]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Terry Reedy <tjr...@udel.edu> wrote:
> I think it should already have been done. To not feature our latest release
> on the page where the latest releases have always before been featured is to
> say that it is somehow not a full production-ready release.

There were times when 3.1 and 3.2 were the latest releases, and they
have never been featured there. They were also production ready.

-- Devin

[Terry Reedy]

> On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:55 AM, Ned Batchelder
> <n...@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
>> Py2 is still vastly more used.

Every time we release a new version, the previous version is vastly more
used. But we have previously put the new docs on docs.p.org anyway.

For beginners learning Python in classes, I suspect Python 3 is more
used. (I certainly hope so ;-).

--
Terry Jan Reedy

[Terry Reedy]

On 10/26/2012 1:42 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Am 26.10.2012 01:50, schrieb Yury Selivanov:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I remember a discussion to make docs.python.org <http://docs.python.org>
>> pointed to py3k docs by default.
>>
>> Are we still going to do that?
>
> How about http://docs2.python.org for the latest stable version of
> Python 2.x and http://docs3.python.org for the latest stable of Python
> 3.x? The py3k docs traditionally point to the latest development version.

I thought we had half-way already decided on that, with the possibility
of docs.python.org listing both.

--
Terry Jan Reedy

[Cameron Simpson]

On 26Oct2012 18:22, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Terry Reedy <tjr...@udel.edu> wrote:
| > I think it should already have been done. To not feature our latest release
| > on the page where the latest releases have always before been featured is to
| > say that it is somehow not a full production-ready release.
|
| There were times when 3.1 and 3.2 were the latest releases, and they
| have never been featured there. They were also production ready.

That's Terry's point: by not featuring them there we're insinuating that they
were not production ready...
--
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au>

You can blip it twice to clear the bore,
But blip it thrice, and you've sinned once more.
- Tom Warner <t...@dfind.demon.co.uk>

[Ned Batchelder]

On 10/26/2012 6:22 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:55 AM, Ned Batchelder
>> <n...@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
>>> Py2 is still vastly more used.
>
> Every time we release a new version, the previous version is vastly
> more used. But we have previously put the new docs on docs.p.org anyway.
>

I'm not suggesting having py2 as the default, just providing an easy way
to get to them. I can read 2.7 docs and figure out how 2.6 works from
them much more easily than I can read 3.3 docs and figure out how 2.7 works.

> For beginners learning Python in classes, I suspect Python 3 is more
> used. (I certainly hope so ;-).
>

Hmm, I don't think that's true just yet.

--Ned.

[Devin Jeanpierre]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Terry Reedy <tjr...@udel.edu> wrote:
> For beginners learning Python in classes, I suspect Python 3 is more used.
> (I certainly hope so ;-).

Instructors have their own kind of inertia. If they change major
versions, they no longer get to reuse old slides, they have to rewrite
old assignments, upgrade the automated test systems, and even just
plain learn Python 3, which is a challenge of its own (albeit a small
one.) Remember also that must non-research instructors are vastly
overworked, and most research professors aren't exactly eager to burn
lots of time in course preparation either, since their job is not to
teach but to research.

Considering that the differences between Python 2 and 3 are irrelevant
for nearly any educational context, what's the payoff? The move is
just something they have to do eventually because of bug support
reasons, not something they are eager to do except out of some kind of
enthusiasm (which, admittedly, instructors often have -- shiny is
shiny.)

My university (the University of Toronto) has switched to Python 3 for
their new Coursera courses, because they involved writing material
from scratch anyway, so might as well make it futureproof. The regular
classes taught inside the university itself still use Python 2.7
(actually, they used Python 2.5 until the upgrade process a year and a
half ago, which I was a part of), and other than the coursera work, as
far as I am aware, no moves have been made to switch to Python 3.

They might also switch to another language entirely instead. They used
Racket in a couple of introductory courses last year, and I've heard
good things from faculty and students involved. It's a more viable
decision than it used to be, since a lot of work has to be done
regardless to switch to Python 3, so the inertial reason of staying
with Python is diminished. I don't think this will happen near-term,
because they're still investing in Python, but it was nice to see that
they were breaking out of their rut and trying new things.

-- Devin

[Raymond Hettinger]

On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

For beginners learning Python in classes, I suspect Python 3 is more used.
(I certainly hope so ;-).

I've been teaching quite a bit this year.  Python 3 isn't being used at all

(by any of my clients or by any of the other instructors I know who are

teaching Python).

Raymond

[massimo....@gmail.com]

At depaul we have 4 intro python courses csc241 242 243 401. They all use python 3. They use the perkovic cs intro book which uses python 3.


From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.

-------- Original message -------- Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] docs.python.org From: Raymond Hettinger To: jeanpi...@gmail.com CC: python...@python.org,tjr...@udel.edu

[Terry Reedy]

On 10/26/2012 6:46 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 26Oct2012 18:22, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> | On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Terry Reedy <tjr...@udel.edu> wrote:
> | > I think it should already have been done. To not feature our latest release
> | > on the page where the latest releases have always before been featured is to
> | > say that it is somehow not a full production-ready release.
> |
> | There were times when 3.1 and 3.2 were the latest releases, and they
> | have never been featured there. They were also production ready.

3.1 came out in between 2.6 and 2.7 and one could argue that it was
still somewhat a trial version and that switching back and forth (2.6,
3.1, 2.7) would not be a good idea.

3.2 came out 8 months after 2.7. I would have made the switch then, but
I acknowledge that one could argue that 2.7 had not had its 18-24 months
in the sun, and that 3.2 still lacked 3rd party library support.

> That's Terry's point: by not featuring them there we're insinuating that they
> were not production ready...

3.3 is now out 29 months after 2.7, library support is much improved,
and the new unicode implementation fixes most to almost all the
remaining problems with unicode. It is a release we can be proud of and
should promote as the latest and greatest Python version.

--
Terry Jan Reedy

[Mark Lawrence]

On 27/10/2012 03:55, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> 3.3 is now out 29 months after 2.7, library support is much improved,
> and the new unicode implementation fixes most to almost all the
> remaining problems with unicode. It is a release we can be proud of and
> should promote as the latest and greatest Python version.
>

+1

--
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

[Yury Selivanov]

On 2012-10-26, at 10:55 PM, Terry Reedy <tjr...@udel.edu> wrote:

> 3.3 is now out 29 months after 2.7, library support is much improved, and the new unicode implementation fixes most to almost all the remaining problems with unicode. It is a release we can be proud of and should promote as the latest and greatest Python version.

I feel the same.

On the one hand I understand position to keep 2.7 as default here and there,
as it's currently used more; but on the other, here is what we have:

- default documentation page - 2.7

- python.org home page: New to Python or choosing between Python 2 and Python 3?
Read Python 2 or Python 3

- python.org downloads:
-- The current production versions are Python 2.7.3 and Python 3.3.0.
-- If you don't know which version to use, start with Python 2.7; more existing
third party software is compatible with Python 2 than Python 3 right now.
-- First links to downloads - 2.7

Isn't it too much of python 2? What is the impression after all of this?
Python 2.7 is the current and recommended version.

I think that the message should be clear, and after 3 years it's time to say
that python 3 is always the preferred way. After all, people are not dumb,
if they use python 2 they can go and download it, and they certainly can find
docs for it as well.

-
Yury

[Nick Coghlan]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Yury Selivanov <yseliv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that the message should be clear, and after 3 years it's time to say
> that python 3 is always the preferred way. After all, people are not dumb,
> if they use python 2 they can go and download it, and they certainly can find
> docs for it as well.

The message is clear, but some people just don't like the current
message: Python 2 is still the recommended default version for
production systems and applications.

- most hosting services (including Platform-as-a-Service providers
with a Python option) only offer Python 2
- Fedora, RHEL and derivatives still require Python 2 for all their
system utilities (Ubuntu at least has migrated their core system
tools, but I don't know about Debian upstream)
- Django does not yet have a released version that supports Python 3
(and even once 1.5 final is out the door, the Python 3 support is
technically classed as experimental until 1.6)
- graphics support in Python 3 is still a little sketchy in some
regards, but clearly improving (pygame and various GUI libraries like
pyside already work, pyglet has an alpha version, there's no
PIL/Pillow release, but there are working forks [1])

I don't think the ecosystem is to the point where it makes sense to
flip the switch just yet, but I do think it would be reasonable to
define the ecosystem state where we *will* flip the switch. The two
key missing pieces for me are:
- a Django release with non-experimental Python 3 support (i.e. likely
to happen with Django 1.6)
- an official release of PIL (or Pillow) that supports Python 3

(Why do I include those, and not Twisted? Because if you're a capable
enough developer to cope with Twisted, you're going to be able to cope
with the move from 3.3 back to 2.7)

Cheers,
Nick.

[1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/image-sig/2012-October/007080.html

--
Nick Coghlan | ncog...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

[Yury Selivanov]

On 2012-10-27, at 1:15 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think the ecosystem is to the point where it makes sense to
> flip the switch just yet, but I do think it would be reasonable to
> define the ecosystem state where we *will* flip the switch. The two
> key missing pieces for me are:
> - a Django release with non-experimental Python 3 support (i.e. likely
> to happen with Django 1.6)
> - an official release of PIL (or Pillow) that supports Python 3

One last thought (no need to reply if you disagree).

What if it's all "chicken or the egg" problem? Maybe the right strategy
is not to hide python 2 from everywhere and start actively promoting
py3k, but to push it gradually?

Start with docs switching to py3k by default. That shouldn't be harmful
(and I hope that my docs theme patch will be accepted soon).

A bit later, when Django finally adds python 3 support - change python.org
homepage with a more prominent advice to use py3d.

Etc.

Thanks,
Yury

[Nick Coghlan]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Yury Selivanov <yseliv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Start with docs switching to py3k by default. That shouldn't be harmful
> (and I hope that my docs theme patch will be accepted soon).

Actually, there are at least a few very real harms that come from
switching the docs over:
1. Many third party Python 2 tutorials include links to our docs. We
can't magically reach out to those sites and update their links, so
they will end up linking to Python 3 resources from Python 2 ones
2. It breaks links on sites like Stack Overflow and in mailing list
archives and our own bug tracker, which currently link to the main
docs to explain Python 2 behaviour
3. it completely breaks direct hyperlinks to names that no longer
exist in Python 3 (even the ones that exist under new names).

I'm actually wondering if docs.python.org should be updated *now* with
a rewrite rule that redirects to a more explicit docs.python.org/2.x/
URL. At the moment, there is no easy way to get hold of a stable URL
for the Python 2 docs, and nothing we can put in any advance
announcement of a migration to say something like:

"docs.python.org will switch to displaying the Python 3 documentation
by default in June 2013. Please update any direct links that are
intended to refer specifically to the Python 2 documentation by
including a leading '/2.x/' in the path component of the URL. For
example, 'http://docs.python.org/library/os' would become
'http://docs.python.org/2.x/library/os'. Between now and the migration
in June 2013, affected links will be automatically redirected to the
new stable Python 2.x URLs".

So that's my concrete proposal:
1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right)
2. We pick a stable URL prefix for the Python 2 docs (I vote "/2.x/")
3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately
4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7
docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Nick Coghlan | ncog...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

[Donald Stufft]

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

So that's my concrete proposal:

1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right)

2. We pick a stable URL prefix for the Python 2 docs (I vote "/2.x/")

3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately

4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7

docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide

+1

Can we change /py3k/ to /3.x/ and redirect the old one to match?

Another idea is similar, but instead of doing /2.x/ always redirect the

the root of docs.python.org to the latest production release, so

right now /foo would redirect to /2.7/foo. This is even better for

maintaining links to the actual resource people meant to link

to. Could even include a header at the top of old versions saying that

"You are currently viewing the docs for 2.5. Click here to view the

docs for 2.7".

[Yury Selivanov]

Nick,

On 2012-10-27, at 2:22 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm actually wondering if docs.python.org should be updated *now* with
> a rewrite rule that redirects to a more explicit docs.python.org/2.x/
> URL. At the moment, there is no easy way to get hold of a stable URL
> for the Python 2 docs, and nothing we can put in any advance
> announcement of a migration to say something like:
>
> "docs.python.org will switch to displaying the Python 3 documentation
> by default in June 2013. Please update any direct links that are
> intended to refer specifically to the Python 2 documentation by
> including a leading '/2.x/' in the path component of the URL. For
> example, 'http://docs.python.org/library/os' would become
> 'http://docs.python.org/2.x/library/os'. Between now and the migration
> in June 2013, affected links will be automatically redirected to the
> new stable Python 2.x URLs".
>
> So that's my concrete proposal:
> 1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right)
> 2. We pick a stable URL prefix for the Python 2 docs (I vote "/2.x/")
> 3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately
> 4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7
> docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide

Now that's a great plan!

Big +1.

A few comments:

1. I'd still vote for an earlier date, like February/March 2013
2. How about simple docs.pyhton.org/2 and docs.python.org/3 ?

-
Yury

[Bruce Leban]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncog...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Yury Selivanov <yseliv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Start with docs switching to py3k by default.  That shouldn't be harmful
> (and I hope that my docs theme patch will be accepted soon).

Actually, there are at least a few very real harms that come from
switching the docs over:
1. Many third party Python 2 tutorials include links to our docs. We
can't magically reach out to those sites and update their links, so
they will end up linking to Python 3 resources from Python 2 ones

And many tutorials are not intentionally version specific.

 

2. It breaks links on sites like Stack Overflow and in mailing list
archives and our own bug tracker, which currently link to the main
docs to explain Python 2 behaviour

However, just because stack overflow and other sites link to 2.x docs doesn't mean that the user wants to read the 2.x docs. Scenario: I'm using 3.x, I go to stack overflow to find out how to do something. it links to the docs for the old version which is inaccurate for me. What I want is to be able to quickly get to the doc that's relevant to *my* version.

 

3. it completely breaks direct hyperlinks to names that no longer
exist in Python 3 (even the ones that exist under new names)

Urls for things that have been renamed should redirect to the appropriate pages (whether docs on the new thing or an explanation of why this feature doesn't exist in that version). This should work both forwards (2.x feature renamed in 3.x) and backwards (3.x feature doesn't exist in 2.x)

 

So that's my concrete proposal:

1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right)
2. We pick a stable URL prefix for the Python 2 docs (I vote "/2.x/")
3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately
4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7
docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide

I think this following proposal provides a better user experience. If you don't think this is better, why?

2. Pick a stable url for docs and a way for referrers to select the referenced version when that matters

Examples:

    (a) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html#os.walk -- displays user's preferred version (see below)

    (b) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html?version=2.7#os.walk -- displays version 2.7 if user does not have user's preferred version

    (c) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html?exactversion=2.7#os.walk -- always displays version 2.7 (discouraged unless talking specifically about that version)

3. All the pages have a version picker (as previously discussed). The dropdown to pick a version number could also have a way to pick the user's preferred version and save it in a cookie.

4. Make the version number more prominent in case (c) so user will be aware that they are not seeing their preferred version.

--- Bruce

[Nick Coghlan]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Bruce Leban <br...@leapyear.org> wrote:
> 2. Pick a stable url for docs and a way for referrers to select the
> referenced version when that matters
>
> Examples:
> (a) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html#os.walk -- displays
> user's preferred version (see below)
> (b) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html?version=2.7#os.walk --
> displays version 2.7 if user does not have user's preferred version
> (c) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html?exactversion=2.7#os.walk
> -- always displays version 2.7 (discouraged unless talking specifically
> about that version)

We can already reference exact versions:

http://docs.python.org/2.6/library/os
http://docs.python.org/2.7/library/os
http://docs.python.org/3.2/library/os
http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/os

For non-current releases, those will redirect to the appropriate
release-specific URL, for the two current releases, it will redirect
to the stable "latest release" URL.

The problem is the current stable URLs for "latest Python 2" and
"latest Python 3" are respectively:

http://docs.python.org/library/os
http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/os

(despite comments elsewhere in the thread, "py3k" does *not* resolve
to the dev docs - those use the "/dev/" prefix in the path component)

It was suggested previously (i.e. more than a year ago) that it would
be better if 2.x/3.x worked as expected so people could update their
links appropriately, and I thought we had agreement on making that
change, but I guess nobody with server access agreed that was the case
(there's no ticket tracker currently in place for the python.org
infrastructure).

Note that I am deliberately limiting my suggestions to those which
require nothing new in the docs theming, just updates to the URL
handling in the web server.

[M.-A. Lemburg]

On 27.10.2012 08:22, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> So that's my concrete proposal:
> 1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right)
> 2. We pick a stable URL prefix for the Python 2 docs (I vote "/2.x/")

Why "/2.x/" and not just "/2/" ?

> 3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately

I think we should do the same for all Python 3 resources, i.e.
have "/library/os.html" redirect to "/3/library/os.html" so that
we don't run into the same problem again in the future.

> 4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7
> docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide

We also need a solution for URLs that exist for Python 2, but
not for Python 3. Those should be redirected to the Python 2
resource automatically, e.g. URLs pointing to the Python 2 modules
that were renamed in Python 3.

BTW: Will you write up a PEP for this ?

--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Oct 27 2012)
>>> Python Projects, Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope/Plone.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________
2012-10-29: PyCon DE 2012, Leipzig, Germany ... 2 days to go

::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::

eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/

[Paul Moore]

On 27 October 2012 08:11, Donald Stufft <donald...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 27, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> So that's my concrete proposal:
> 1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right)
> 2. We pick a stable URL prefix for the Python 2 docs (I vote "/2.x/")
> 3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately
> 4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7
> docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide
>
> +1

+1 also.

> Can we change /py3k/ to /3.x/ and redirect the old one to match?

+1. I'm sorry, but now that Python 3 is up to 3.3, and is a really
solid version, the "py3k" name doesn't feel "official" enough.

> Another idea is similar, but instead of doing /2.x/ always redirect the
> the root of docs.python.org to the latest production release, so
> right now /foo would redirect to /2.7/foo. This is even better for
> maintaining links to the actual resource people meant to link
> to. Could even include a header at the top of old versions saying that
> "You are currently viewing the docs for 2.5. Click here to view the
> docs for 2.7".

-1. Certainly what I (and I suspect many others) usually care about is
getting at the "Python 2" or "Python 3" documentation, not a specific
version. Having the 2.7, 2.6 links is fine, but I don't *think* of
myself as going to the 2.7 docs, but rather to the 2.x docs (as
opposed to 3.x). The "New in x.y" annotations give me the history I
need. And I think that's true of links as well - they would be to
"python 2" or "python 3", not (normally) to a specific minor version.

Paul.

[Mark Dickinson]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Yury Selivanov <yseliv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Start with docs switching to py3k by default. That shouldn't be harmful
>> (and I hope that my docs theme patch will be accepted soon).
>
> Actually, there are at least a few very real harms that come from
> switching the docs over:
> 1. Many third party Python 2 tutorials include links to our docs. We
> can't magically reach out to those sites and update their links, so
> they will end up linking to Python 3 resources from Python 2 ones

As a data point, MIT's '6.00x Introduction to Computer Science and
Programming' EdX online course contains many links of the form
"http://docs.python.org/library/...". I don't have exact numbers, but
judging by the EPD download numbers we've been seeing there are
definitely thousands of students, and probably tens of thousands,
taking that course. Switching docs.python.org without a generous
warning period would not be a good idea for those students.

--
Mark

[Antoine Pitrou]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:06:41 +0100
Paul Moore <p.f....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Another idea is similar, but instead of doing /2.x/ always redirect the
> > the root of docs.python.org to the latest production release, so
> > right now /foo would redirect to /2.7/foo. This is even better for
> > maintaining links to the actual resource people meant to link
> > to. Could even include a header at the top of old versions saying that
> > "You are currently viewing the docs for 2.5. Click here to view the
> > docs for 2.7".
>
> -1. Certainly what I (and I suspect many others) usually care about is
> getting at the "Python 2" or "Python 3" documentation, not a specific
> version. Having the 2.7, 2.6 links is fine, but I don't *think* of
> myself as going to the 2.7 docs, but rather to the 2.x docs (as
> opposed to 3.x). The "New in x.y" annotations give me the history I
> need. And I think that's true of links as well - they would be to
> "python 2" or "python 3", not (normally) to a specific minor version.

I'm not sure why you're -1 about something which wouldn't affect you
negatively. As you say yourself, the 2.7 docs have all the information
you need about previous releases as well (because of the versionadded
and versionchanged markers). *However*, the 2.6 and previous docs don't
have information about useful stuff added in 2.7.

And since 2.7 is the last in the 2.x line, I think it makes sense to
reflect that explicitly in the redirections.

Regards

Antoine.

[Paul Moore]

On 27 October 2012 12:43, Antoine Pitrou <soli...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:06:41 +0100
> Paul Moore <p.f....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Another idea is similar, but instead of doing /2.x/ always redirect the
>> > the root of docs.python.org to the latest production release, so
>> > right now /foo would redirect to /2.7/foo. This is even better for
>> > maintaining links to the actual resource people meant to link
>> > to. Could even include a header at the top of old versions saying that
>> > "You are currently viewing the docs for 2.5. Click here to view the
>> > docs for 2.7".
>>
>> -1. Certainly what I (and I suspect many others) usually care about is
>> getting at the "Python 2" or "Python 3" documentation, not a specific
>> version. Having the 2.7, 2.6 links is fine, but I don't *think* of
>> myself as going to the 2.7 docs, but rather to the 2.x docs (as
>> opposed to 3.x). The "New in x.y" annotations give me the history I
>> need. And I think that's true of links as well - they would be to
>> "python 2" or "python 3", not (normally) to a specific minor version.
>
> I'm not sure why you're -1 about something which wouldn't affect you
> negatively. As you say yourself, the 2.7 docs have all the information
> you need about previous releases as well (because of the versionadded
> and versionchanged markers). *However*, the 2.6 and previous docs don't
> have information about useful stuff added in 2.7.

Maybe I misunderstood. I was assuming that there would be no "2.x"
link, only "2.7". That's what I'm against - I would prefer to use a
generic 2.x link to get to the Python 2 docs if I needed them (just as
I use docs.python.org at the moment).

My -1 was too strong though, make that a -0 (and a "don't care" if
there will be a 2.x link as well as the explicit ones).

> And since 2.7 is the last in the 2.x line, I think it makes sense to
> reflect that explicitly in the redirections.

I'm not against an explicit 2.7 link - we have that already, don't we?

Paul

[M.-A. Lemburg]

On 27.10.2012 13:34, Mark Dickinson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Yury Selivanov <yseliv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Start with docs switching to py3k by default. That shouldn't be harmful
>>> (and I hope that my docs theme patch will be accepted soon).
>>
>> Actually, there are at least a few very real harms that come from
>> switching the docs over:
>> 1. Many third party Python 2 tutorials include links to our docs. We
>> can't magically reach out to those sites and update their links, so
>> they will end up linking to Python 3 resources from Python 2 ones
>
> As a data point, MIT's '6.00x Introduction to Computer Science and
> Programming' EdX online course contains many links of the form
> "http://docs.python.org/library/...". I don't have exact numbers, but
> judging by the EPD download numbers we've been seeing there are
> definitely thousands of students, and probably tens of thousands,
> taking that course. Switching docs.python.org without a generous
> warning period would not be a good idea for those students.

Wouldn't it be possible to leave the non-versioned URLs redirecting
to the Python 2 versions for say another 5 years and instead
have the base URL http://docs.python.org/ provide links to either
the Python 2 or 3 version (perhaps even listing the various available
minor versions) ?

That would avoid the issue of having existing course material on the
web fail to work after just one year.

At PyCon UK we discussed these issues with teachers and people
interested in getting Python on the UK teaching plan. Their main
concern was that text books and course material have a much longer
life period than just 18 months. For them it's very important to
have a stable release of both Python and its documentation that
remains valid for at least 5 years.

I hope that Python 3.x has stabilized enough now with the 3.3 release
that it can become the basis for such materials.

In any case, if we want Python 3 to be picked up in such environments,
we cannot easily go about breaking things like URLs to documentation
and will have to settle on a stable approach soon.

--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Oct 27 2012)
>>> Python Projects, Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope/Plone.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________
2012-10-29: PyCon DE 2012, Leipzig, Germany ... 2 days to go

::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::

eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/

[Nick Coghlan]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote:
> On 27.10.2012 08:22, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> So that's my concrete proposal:
>> 1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right)
>> 2. We pick a stable URL prefix for the Python 2 docs (I vote "/2.x/")
>
> Why "/2.x/" and not just "/2/" ?

I find the /2/ vs /3/ too easy to miss in the middle of a full URL,
whereas I find the extra space to the right of the number in /2.x/ vs
/3.x/ makes them easier to separate.

However, in writing up the PEP, I discovered it was annoyingly
ambiguous whether "/2.x/" specifically meant that URL, or whether it
meant "/2.7/" and friends, so I switched to the shorter form.

>> 3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately
>
> I think we should do the same for all Python 3 resources, i.e.
> have "/library/os.html" redirect to "/3/library/os.html" so that
> we don't run into the same problem again in the future.

In writing up the PEP, I rediscovered an old proposal of mine to avoid
breaking deep links by simply do a "documented deprecation" of
unqualified deep links, but otherwise leaving them pointing to Python
2. Only the default landing page would be switched to Python 3.

Since that approach avoids a *lot* of issues, that's what I ended writing up.

>> 4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7
>> docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide
>
> We also need a solution for URLs that exist for Python 2, but
> not for Python 3. Those should be redirected to the Python 2
> resource automatically, e.g. URLs pointing to the Python 2 modules
> that were renamed in Python 3.
>
> BTW: Will you write up a PEP for this ?

Committed as PEP 430, should show up
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0430 before too long.

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Nick Coghlan | ncog...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

[Antoine Pitrou]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:21:59 +0100
Paul Moore <p.f....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And since 2.7 is the last in the 2.x line, I think it makes sense to
> > reflect that explicitly in the redirections.
>
> I'm not against an explicit 2.7 link - we have that already, don't we?

Yes, but the proposal is about redirecting docs.python.org to
docs.python.org/2.7.

Regards

Antoine.

[Yury Selivanov]

On 2012-10-27, at 10:40 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Committed as PEP 430, should show up
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0430 before too long.

I like the PEP, Nick.

-
Yury

[Terry Reedy]

On 10/27/2012 11:53 AM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> On 2012-10-27, at 10:40 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Committed as PEP 430, should show up
>> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0430 before too long.
>
> I like the PEP, Nick.

It looks good to me also. I agree that breaking the existing
non-specific deep links is a problem. As I understand the proposal,
browser bars would only display version- or at least series-specific
links so that future copy and paste of links would do the right thing
for the indefinite future.

--
Terry Jan Reedy

[Mark Dickinson]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In writing up the PEP, I rediscovered an old proposal of mine to avoid
> breaking deep links by simply do a "documented deprecation" of
> unqualified deep links, but otherwise leaving them pointing to Python
> 2. Only the default landing page would be switched to Python 3.
>
> Since that approach avoids a *lot* of issues, that's what I ended writing up.

This seems like a nice solution.

--
Mark

[Georg Brandl]

Am 27.10.2012 16:40, schrieb Nick Coghlan:

>>> 4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7
>>> docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide
>>
>> We also need a solution for URLs that exist for Python 2, but
>> not for Python 3. Those should be redirected to the Python 2
>> resource automatically, e.g. URLs pointing to the Python 2 modules
>> that were renamed in Python 3.
>>
>> BTW: Will you write up a PEP for this ?
>
> Committed as PEP 430, should show up
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0430 before too long.

Well, with the approval I've seen here, I have absolutely no problem
with appointing myself PEP Czar and accepting the PEP :)

I'll work on fixing the Apache config.

Georg

[Barry Warsaw]

On Oct 26, 2012, at 10:55 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:

>3.3 is now out 29 months after 2.7, library support is much improved, and the
>new unicode implementation fixes most to almost all the remaining problems
>with unicode. It is a release we can be proud of and should promote as the
>latest and greatest Python version.

Very definitely +1

-Barry

[Barry Warsaw]

On Oct 27, 2012, at 03:15 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

>The message is clear, but some people just don't like the current
>message: Python 2 is still the recommended default version for
>production systems and applications.

I would hedge that and say that for new work where you have your Python 3
dependencies available, Python 3 should be the recommended default. In
Ubuntu, we are actively porting our core system utilities to Python 3, but
some dependencies stop us for getting all the way there. Xapian and Twisted
come to mind, but the Twisted folks are making great progress, so I expect
that for our Twisted apps at least, that story will be better soon.

Python 3.3 has some very clear advantages, so we are pushing to make that the
default leading up to Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.

>- Fedora, RHEL and derivatives still require Python 2 for all their
>system utilities (Ubuntu at least has migrated their core system
>tools, but I don't know about Debian upstream)

Debian Wheezy is in freeze so I wouldn't expect a lot of adoption there until
after that's released. Then I hope that we'll be able to push those things
upstream.

>I don't think the ecosystem is to the point where it makes sense to
>flip the switch just yet, but I do think it would be reasonable to
>define the ecosystem state where we *will* flip the switch. The two
>key missing pieces for me are:
>- a Django release with non-experimental Python 3 support (i.e. likely
>to happen with Django 1.6)
>- an official release of PIL (or Pillow) that supports Python 3

One way to look at it is that there doesn't necessary have to be just one big
switch. There's a big bank of switches, many of which can be flipped now.
Yes, I'd love for the whole line of 'em to be Python 3 green, and eventually
they will be, but if you don't need Django or PIL (or whatever still isn't
ported yet), don't wait, port!

Cheers,
-Barry

[Nick Coghlan]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Georg Brandl <g.br...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 27.10.2012 16:40, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
>
>>>> 4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7
>>>> docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide
>>>
>>> We also need a solution for URLs that exist for Python 2, but
>>> not for Python 3. Those should be redirected to the Python 2
>>> resource automatically, e.g. URLs pointing to the Python 2 modules
>>> that were renamed in Python 3.
>>>
>>> BTW: Will you write up a PEP for this ?
>>
>> Committed as PEP 430, should show up
>> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0430 before too long.
>
> Well, with the approval I've seen here, I have absolutely no problem
> with appointing myself PEP Czar and accepting the PEP :)

Heh, asking you to do that was next on my list, so thanks. Did Guido
hide a mind reading device in the time machine? :)

> I'll work on fixing the Apache config.

Huzzah \o/

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Nick Coghlan | ncog...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

[Yury Selivanov]

On 2012-10-28, at 3:59 AM, Georg Brandl <g.br...@gmx.net> wrote:

> Well, with the approval I've seen here, I have absolutely no problem
> with appointing myself PEP Czar and accepting the PEP :)

That's awesome!

-
Yury

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Yury Selivanov writes:

> The thing about 'doc2' & 'doc3' urls I don't like is that sooner or later
> users will use python 3. There is no future for python 2.

That's true for each user (assuming they don't die before switching).
It's not true for all applications, though. There will undoubtedly be
systems based on Python 2 still in active, profitable use 10 years
from now.

It's just a yucky UI, let's stick to that for a reason.

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

As stated, yes, very much so.

I think it's unfortunate that some of this discussion has generated
more heat than light because there are three different goals here all
stemming from "promoting Python 3": (1) "... as a great language", (2)
"... as a great production-ready development environment" (for *some*
applications), and (3) "... as a great production-ready development
environment" (period, or to take a page from Linus's book, "World
Domination! Now!")

I think Nick's approach starts to phase in a change in promotion
effort appropriately. But it's only a start.

[Stefan Krah]

Stephen J. Turnbull <ste...@xemacs.org> wrote:
> I think Nick's approach starts to phase in a change in promotion
> effort appropriately. But it's only a start.

As for promotion, I just noticed that searching for "Python 3" gives this
as the first result:

http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/


Overall, the (Google) search results on the first page don't look very
inviting, so perhaps we could improve the situation by adding "nofollow"
to the older release pages.



Stefan Krah

[Nick Coghlan]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Stefan Krah <ste...@bytereef.org> wrote:
> As for promotion, I just noticed that searching for "Python 3" gives this
> as the first result:
>
> http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/

The second result is the current docs at http://docs.python.org/3.3/,
which is pretty useful, *except* that the docs have no pointer to the
corresponding release page. Perhaps the existing "Welcome" paragraph
should be extended with a reference to the appropriate release page?

(Also: very nice work to everyone that helped make the version
switcher a reality)

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Nick Coghlan | ncog...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

[Stefan Krah]

Nick Coghlan <ncog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Stefan Krah <ste...@bytereef.org> wrote:
> > As for promotion, I just noticed that searching for "Python 3" gives this
> > as the first result:
> >
> > http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
>
> The second result is the current docs at http://docs.python.org/3.3/,
> which is pretty useful, *except* that the docs have no pointer to the
> corresponding release page. Perhaps the existing "Welcome" paragraph
> should be extended with a reference to the appropriate release page?

I think that's probably not necessary. Someone who is really searching
for the newest version will of course find it.


Getting rid of 3.0 in the top search results is more of an image thing.
3.0 is associated with "this new experimental version with virtually
no packages that support it".


For the casual searcher who might be trying to decide between Python and
other languages it would be nice to have more 3.3 links, hopefully sending
the message "a better Python with many more features and Django/Twisted
support just around the corner".

> (Also: very nice work to everyone that helped make the version
> switcher a reality)

I agree, the docs.python.org changes are a great improvement. Thanks everyone.



Stefan Krah

[Jay Wren]

Did this change recently? I just noticed that from http://www.python.org/doc/ if I click "Browse Current Documentation" under then Python 2.x section, it links to docs.python.org which then redirects to docs.python.org/3/ which is NOT the 2.x current documentation for which I clicked.
--
Jay

[Georg Brandl]

Am 29.10.2012 17:12, schrieb Jay Wren:

>>> And since 2.7 is the last in the 2.x line, I think it makes sense to
>>> reflect that explicitly in the redirections.
>>
>> I'm not against an explicit 2.7 link - we have that already, don't we?
>
> Did this change recently? I just noticed that from http://www.python.org/doc/
> if I click "Browse Current Documentation" under then Python 2.x section, it
> links to docs.python.org which then redirects to docs.python.org/3/ which is
> NOT the 2.x current documentation for which I clicked. -- Jay

Good point. Should be fixed now.

Geor