Missing Octave 6.2 doxygen pages

I tried to update the documentation links on the wiki to include Octave 6.1 and 6.2, and the Doxygen pages for Octave 6.2 are missing on the server. Could someone generate and upload them?

OK. I’m building the pages now and will upload when it is finished, then create the links on the wiki.

1 Like

It’s done now. I also uploaded a new copy of the doxygen files for the current development sources.

How many old versions should we keep? Although the hosting service places no fixed limit on the amount of disk storage available to us, it seems somewhat wasteful to have many old versions since these are fairly large collections of files and going back more than a couple of versions is probably not all that useful:

    243M	3.2
    847M	3.4
    619M	3.6
    2.3G	3.8
    2.1G	4.0
    3.1G	4.2
    2.1G	4.3
    2.3G	4.4
    2.4G	5.1.0
    3.3G	5.2.0
    2.7G	6.1.0
    2.6G	6.2.0
    2.7G	7.0.0
    27G	total

At least 4.3 should be removed since it’s never been a stable version, and only keeping the latest release of a given major version would probably be enough since we don’t do public API changes between point releases. As for the number of major versions, maybe 5 is enough (7.5 years with an average 18 month release schedule).

Agree.

In this case I would like to preserve the old documentation. The cases are probably very rare that people will read old documentation again. On the other hand, I remember to have given link references in this forum or on the mailing-list to certain Doxygen pages to explain something.

When finding those explanations 10 years from now "the answer to your problem is given in the Doxygen manual " are of no help anymore. Not related to Octave, but I sometimes meet many dead links in postings like this when reading up old StackOverflow answers to still relevant topics.

Thus my point, when there is no need to delete, maybe we can just leave it as it is now?

Having old versions there so links on the mailing list or here will continue to work is fine. In that case, we should probably also make URLs that end in “stable” redirect instead of using a symbolic link. Otherwise, the links to internal nodes are likely expire or change. Also, if we are only going to have a single set of doxygen or doc pages for a given major release, we should be using “5”, “6”, etc. instead of “5.1.0”, “5.2.0” or even what was there previously, “5.1” and “5.2”.

1 Like