Adding contents from Wiki of expressjs:express in en language #1565
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for expressjscom-preview ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
|
Before I proceed with other contents, I have a few questions,
|
|
It would be better if the new pages were translated in different PRs, as it could happen like in https://expressjs.com/ru/resources/applications.html where the page is not translated into the corresponding language. |
IamLizu
force-pushed
the
content-migration
branch
from
c9cffb1 to
bb564a9
Compare
I think that markdown is fine, but you might require html if you need additional features that are not included in the markdown support.
Don't worry, we can focus on English only in this PR.
Yeah! Thanks for leading this :)
I don't think so, seems outdated in 2024 context 👍 |
|
Hi 👋 Regarding the items which were included as Pending in the PR description,
And with that, I am marking this PR available for review 🤚 Edit: Forced pushed after a rebase in order to update the translation workflow file. |
IamLizu
changed the title
- migrating from 3x to 4x - new features in 4x
- new features of 4x in migrating 4 - migrating from 3x to 4x in migrating 4 - migrating from 3x to 4x in new features of 4x
IamLizu
force-pushed
the
content-migration
branch
from
3fb0708 to
e79bffe
Compare
|
I am generally 👍 on this, but just want to call out there is a bunch of outdated info in this content from long ago. So it might be that we never even want to translate much of this and should take some time to clean it up first. |
Make sense. However, these outdated contents are in their respective file such as "migrating to 3x". Those information are supposed to be outdated but should be kept for historical reason in my opinion. Readers coming to the website will definitely read the new contents and I assume no is looking to migrate to 3.x for example, so we can safely ignore their translation as well maybe? |
|
Is it useful to bring in the boilerplate when Express@5 is almost ready? If it's for historical purposes, it might be better to handle it, for example, with a URL like |
|
Sorry I'm coming to this discussion late, as I've been out on vacation for a few weeks. I think we should be cautious about what material we port from the wiki to the doc site, because:
Let's think carefully about whether it's worth investing the time and effort to move/maintain/translate these topics:
"New" since when, 2014? How much value does this really have for real-world users?
If someone (who?) still has a v2 app, do we really want to encourage them to migrate to v3? Wouldn't it make more sense to just rewrite it for v5, or even v4? This seems to me to have little or no real world value.
Again, this stuff is from around 10 years ago. The info should be covered in https://expressjs.com/en/guide/migrating-4.html but again, what's the best practice for someone (presumably not that many ppl) with a 3.x app? Is it to move to 4.x? Or rewrite it for 5.x? If we really want to spend time documenting how to upgrade from 3x -> 4x, then we should just update https://expressjs.com/en/guide/migrating-4.html. Also re this comment
IMHO, we should consider keeping the wiki around specifically for outdated historical/archival info. It's far less visible than the website, and does't ever need to be translated. These pages should clearly be marked as "OUTDATED ARCHIVED". Yes, we can move them to the website, but is that really how we want to spend our precious time and effort? |
|
Hey @crandmck 👋 Sorry, I guess I also somehow missed this one. I hear you, the new files are not new at all. But they are new in their own context. For example, in docs of 2.0, features of 3.0 are new. And that is where those said new features are mentioned, in their respective files (#1565 (comment)). Funny thing I recently watched an conference talk of yours about how wiki should focus for developers and website for consumers. My bad, I would have at least approached a bit different way if I known better when we were discussing about deprecating the wiki in expressjs/discussions#251 where @wesleytodd and @UlisesGascon had a affirmative indication to what I said in expressjs/discussions#251 (comment). That said, I think no one is going to read the docs for 2.0 or 3.0 so perhaps we can just simply ignore translation for those old files? |
|
Yes, honestly, now that 5.0 is released, I would advocate for removing 2.x doc altogether, and perhaps even 3.x. |
|
Yes, we could remove the old version(s) docs. However, I am being sentimental 😄 Personally, I would keep the old ones, maybe just ignore their translation but keep en for historical record. cc: @expressjs/express-tc |
|
Another option would be to route deprecated APIs through subdomains, as I suggest in #1556 |
|
What is our take on this? |
|
After a long time since this PR was created,I'm not in favor of adding these resources to the page, for several of the reasons @crandmck mentioned. Also, there are middlewares being added, and the policy since I've been here is not to add external resources, as it leads to discussions about what should and shouldn't be added. There are more important things to do here than debating whether to add such tools. As @crandmck said, those wiki pages should be marked as "OUTDATED/ARCHIVED" This work can be done by a member of the triage team, as long as those permissions are given back to the triage team, since it seems they were disabled in the Express repository. |
Overview
As we have discussed here in expressjs/discussions#251, we are keeping docs only in the website. It is easier to maintain a single place instead. This PR will make sure that anything that is in the wiki but not in the website is being added.
New files
Notes
en/3x/api.md.en/resources/utils.md.enas of now.Linked Issues
Edit: Rewrote description in order to give a better idea. Added few links so that relevant things can be navigated to from here.