| Project: | XML sitemap |
| Version: | 6.x-1.x-dev |
| Component: | Documentation |
| Category: | task |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | Unassigned |
| Status: | closed (fixed) |
Issue Summary
I think that the current project page suffers from a wall-of-text that scares potential users. Why do we need so much information? I tried to make a couple slim downs, but a couple have already been changed back, so I figured we should discuss how it can be improved.
The teaser section:
XML Sitemap automatically creates a sitemap that conforms to the sitemaps.org specification. This helps search engines keep their search results up to date. This replaces the Google Sitemap module written by Matthew Loar as part of Google Summer of Code 2005.
The project includes the following modules:
- XML Sitemap: Engines
- It allows the sitemap to be automatically submitted to the following major search engines: Ask, Google, Windows Live, and Yahoo!.
- XML Sitemap: Menu
- The module adds menu items to the sitemap (version 5.x-2.x and higher).
- XML Sitemap: Node
- Enable this module if you want to add node links to the sitemap.
It allows to create sitemaps with Views, including Google News sitemaps (Drupal 5 branch only). This feature was sponsored by EmpowHer.com: Strong Women Transforming Health.- XML Sitemap: Term
- It adds taxonomy term links.
- XML Sitemap: User
- The module adds user profile links.
- I think the "description" is fairly good. It's simple and to the point! yay!
- ALREADY CHANGED: I collapsed the links to the four search engines, which makes it a lot more readable.
- TODO: We should remove the colons from the module names, since you will not find colons in the module names in admin/build/modules.
- TODO: I feel like we should change the module texts that say "The module adds user profile links." and "It adds user profile links." to just say "Adds user profile links." Simple and to the point.
- TODO: These module descriptions need to be the same descriptions we have in the .info files for consistency.
- TODO: Maybe we should remove the link to the Google Sitemaps module since it has been officially closed down. There is absolutely nothing that users will get out of viewing that link anymore. Let's still keep the link to Matthew however.]
- TODO: Change "The project includes the following modules:" to "This project includes the following sub-modules:"
Maintainers
- As much as I love to have my own name on the project page, I don't think it's appropriate to have a section just for the Maintainers. There is the handly link called Developers in the project links that shows the maintainers. From that link people can see which maintainers are active and to which branches they are making changes.
- The only time I think it would be appropriate for putting names on the project page is for something like "This module was originally created by x" where person x has not been a maintainer of the project, which we already have in the teaser section.
- TODO: Let's just move these descriptions down to the versions section.
Version notes
- In the 5.x-2.x-dev and 6.x-1.x-dev versions, sitemap.xml can be only accessed from the anonymous user. This is intentional to prevent links that are only visible to logged-in users from showing up in the sitemap. This will be changed in the 6.x-2.x-dev version.
- The 6.x-1.x-dev version is still work in progress to port the code from 5.x-2.x-dev; don't use them in production web sites. The 6.x-0.x-dev, and 6.x-1.x-dev versions will be declared unsupported after the first public version of the 6.x-2.x branch will be available.
- The latest 6.x-1.x-dev commits added a setting, which can be set globally or for each user, to limit the nodes included in the sitemap to the ones authored by the users who created 100 nodes (by default); only the users who have the by-pass the authored nodes check don't have that limitation. Change the setting according to the trust level you have for the users of your web site, or give the permission to the roles you trust more.
- The 6.x-2.x-dev version is for testing and benchmarking purposes only. Upgrading from any other version to 6.x-2.x-dev is NOT currently supported. To use this version you MUST disable and uninstall any current XML Sitemap modules.
- This section should *ONLY* be about helping guide people to the right version to download since it is still kind of at the top of the project page.
- TODO: Separate by Drupal 6 and Drupal 5 so it is easier to find which version applies to the user.
- TODO: Rename the section to something that the user can relate to. How about "Which version should I use?"
- TODO: The first line about accessing sitemap.xml as the anonymous user should be moved to a "Known issues" section (and also included in a Known Issues section in README.txt as well as the handbook documentation).
- TODO: The same thing should be done with the third line about the user threshold setting.
- TODO: We still need to differentiate how 6.x-1.x and 6.x-2.x are different. I also think it is very appropriate to warn users that there is currently no upgrade path for this version.
Known issues
- Users who have not enabled clean URLs have reported receiving an Unsupported file format error from Google. The solution is to replace
?q=sitemap.xmlat the end of the submission URL withindex.php?q=sitemap.xml, or to enable the clean URLs.
- TODO: Bring the known issues from the version information section down here.
- TODO: Arrange them in a FAQ-style question/answer format. Users can more easily identify if they are having the same problem instead of having to scan each group of sentences.
- I think we should remove the "Unsupported file format" line. This should just be in the README or documentation FAQ. It is not common enough of a problem compared to the access denied for sitemap.xml and posts not showing up in the sitemap because of the user threshold.
Updating notes
- When you are updating the project to a new version, be sure to delete the old files before to copy the new ones. The new version can adopt a different directory structure, and you could inadvertently have duplicates of module files. The recommendation is valid also when upgrading major Drupal versions (Drupal 5.x to Drupal 6.x).
- Be sure to always execute the update of Drupal through update.php; if update.php is not executed, the database tables are not being updated, and this will cause SQL query errors provoked by the difference between the fields name used by the code, and the name of the fields really present in the database.
- After updating XML Sitemap, visit /admin/reports/status, and verify there aren't warning (or error) messages given by XML Sitemap; if there are any messages, follow what they suggest you to do.
- This is too verbose for common users to understand. Let's keep it simple and move this up to the version information section, since this applies if users upgrade versions.
Modules that are used from the project if they are installed
- TODO: Change "Modules that are used from the project if they are installed" to "Recommended Modules". Keep it simple and clear.
- Each recommended module needs an explanation *why* or *how* they are used in this module. If I'm a new user to this module I see this list and I have no reason why I should download any of these modules.
*DONE*
Next, I'll comment with my recommended version of the homepage. Let's discuss how we want to change and simplify this page, and then agree to implement it, instead of us making changes to the project page and someone not agreeing and changing it back.
Comments
#1
Here is my recommended text/formatting for the project page. I've removed all the <em> tags around the version numbers since it's not a standard in documentation, and it makes the page harder to edit.
-----------------
XML Sitemap automatically creates a sitemap that conforms to the sitemaps.org specification. This helps search engines keep their search results up to date. This replaces the Google Sitemap module written by Matthew Loar as part of Google Summer of Code 2005. This project includes the following sub-modules:
This feature was sponsored by EmpowHer.com: Strong Women Transforming Health.
Which version should I use?
Known issues
See the handbook page for more configuration issues and problems.
Recommended Modules
5.x-2.x and 6.x-1.x only.
6.x-1.x-dev only
6.x-2.x-dev only
5.x-1.x only
#2
The modules name does contain the colon, as I can see in the modules page.
I am contrary on the use of a sentence written in bold for the description given for the 2.x branch; if it is done for one branch, it should be done for the others too. The page would be a fist in the eyes (to litterally translate an expression used in another language) for who would read it.
#3
@Kiam: Good point about the colons, I'll add those back in in #1. I see your point about the bold sticking out. Doesn't the 6.x-1.x branch upgrade from the 5.x branches? This doesn't apply to the 6.x-2.x branch, which is why it gets a special note. Also see that people have been upgrading without a clean install (#451258: 6.x-2.x-dev must be a clean install - *DO NOT UPGRADE*).
Actually, right now we're the only major module "package" that includes colons in the module names. I think it goes against the standard and we should remove them from the module names.
#4
I don't see in which way a verbal phrase could help the user in understanding what the modules do; if then the difference is just to have or not a personal pronoun of two letters, then I am for a sentence, rather than a verbal phrase. Take in consideration that not all people use English like first language, and it would better for them to read a sentence in the way they learned.
#5
@Kiam/4: That's a good point as well. The major point about that section is that we using four different sentence formats in the sub-module list:
- "It allows..."
- "The module adds..."
- "Enable this module if you want to"
- "It adds..."
I would think it would be difficult for a non-English speaker to read that list which starts sentences in four different ways, when they can and should have the same format. It would be easier to comprehend for everyone.
#6
The name of the modules should be changed; I would remove the colon, use the capital case only for the first word, and use site map rather than sitemap (sitemap is not even a word in the vocabulary, for my Mac).
We should agree on the names that would then be used in all the branches.
#7
@Kiam/6: I used "sitemap" and not "site map" because simply that's the word used in the protocol that the module is about. There are lots of techy words that are not in dictionaries. :)
#8
I am not sure if that would make the sentences harder to be understood; the point is that an English sentence does include the subject (if the sentence does not use the imperative mood; in that case the subject is implicit because it can be just one).
I would keep the sentences in standard English; already that is difficult because there is not just a standard English (if we consider each English dialect that is an official language), but let us limit the language we use to a standard one.
#9
subscribe, per sun, although it looks like Dries beat me. :)
#10
D'oh wrong issue.
But as long as I'm here, IMO I would strip out 99% of the junk on the project page and move it to README.txt. People looking for a sitemap module don't need to know what its origin was, what sub-modules it comes with, etc. They need an overview of what it does and why they'd want it, and the current state of development so they know which one to download. That's it.
#11
Subscribing per David Reid
#12
The following assumes that we go with near-term stable 1.x version and a 2.x version that addresses the performance an scalability issues. Almost all of the details on installing, upgrading from version 5 to 6, and trouble shooting would go in a readme.txt. If I got too far ahead on your future plans then mea culpa. This is just a working draft so feel free but keep the readers in mind. "less may be more."
Features
The XML Sitemap module creates a sitemap that can be automatically submitted to the Ask, Google, Yahoo! and Windows Live search engines. The XML site map created by the module conforms to the sitemaps.org specification that most seach engines rely upon.
The module comes with several submodules that allows the site owner to to do the following:
a) Select the search engines that the XML site map will be submitted to.
b) Add menu items to the site map.
c) Add node links to the site map to create a Site Map using the Views module.
d) Add taxonomy terms links to the site map.
What Version should I use?
a) Drupal 5 users and production sites should use the most stable release, 5.x-1.6.
b) Drupal 6 users and production sites should use the most stable release, 6.x-1.x version. This version has the same features as the 5.x.-1.6 version. Both of these stable releases still have well known performance and scalability issues that will be resolved in future releases. Note, site owners should test these by measuring their websites' performance when the module is enabled and disabled.
Drupal 6 users are not encouraged to use the dev versions of the module in production sites.
Future Work
The module maintainers will continue work on the 6.x-2.x version. This version will be a rewrite that will have performance and scalability improvements. There is no time table for a stable version of 6.x-2.x. Those wishing to help should go to http://drupal.org/node/448000 or [specify a new url].
Once a stable 6.x-2.x verison is released and tested, the maintainers plan to deprecate the 6.x-1.x version. All site owners then will have to use the stable 6.x-2.x version.
See the Readme.text for enabling the module and special instructions on upgrading to version 5 and 6.
#13
#12 seems fine to me, except that:
#14
The project page contains some informations that the user must read before to update, or install the project modules; moving those informations on the README.txt file means that most people will read them after they updated / installed the last version available (I bet on this to happen), that is a second too late.
#15
If they are not going to read the README or UPGRADE text files; they're not going to read the project pages either. The project pages give an easy pointer to RTFM messages but doesn't carry any weight to an administrator following the instructions. If the administrator is a fool he will follow out his own instructions regardless of where the instructions are written.
#16
Where are the instructions more visible? Are they more visible in the project page where anybody looks to download the tarball archive, or are they more visible in a file inside the archive that most of people will not look at?
It would be like to put the instructions about an application in a file that anybody will read after the application is installed; at the time the application is installed, it's already too late to read any instructions about what to do when installing the application.
#17
I think information should be in as many places as possible but I can confess that groking the current project page isn't something that I could do easily. It's become better but I really like Dave's suggestions for changes to the project page. The page could mention the README.txt and INSTALL.txt file as other sources of documentation.
#18
Let me just offer something to my draft that addresses Kiam's and Earnie's concerns. Then you all can vote on which way to go-- Dave's, mine or perhaps somebody else's version.
The following would replace the last line of my version in # 12 "See the Readme.text for enabling the module and special instructions on upgrading to version 5 and 6" with the following:
Installation Issues
"Installation of the XML Sitemap module requires site owners to take special steps. To successfully install the module and avoid major problems, site owners are strongly encouraged to thoroughly read the documentation (insert new book page link) or Readme.txt [link] prior to installing the module. The documentation page and Readme.txt also contains special instructions on upgrading to version 5 and 6, and information on known issues, compatible modules and installation tips."
I think the above passage and the label "Installation Issues" may slow down users who normally install as usual and then only read the documentation and readme.txt when things go wrong. It also will provide identical information in many places.
#19
@Thomasr976: I like the phrasing. It's README.txt though instead of Readme.txt and there is an INSTALL.txt file as well.
EDITED: s/UPDATE.txt/INSTALL.txt
#20
The book page is a good idea, as the only existing book page is for Google Sitemap.
Of course, we should first create the book page, and only then change the project page. The last thing people would like is to find a link that doesn't lead to anyplace.
#21
Definitely have to create and have that new book page ready to go out with any new project description. Everything is related and if the project page is clear and well written, it sets up user expectations for the book page and the README.text and INSTALL.txt docs. I view it as leading people from the shallows to the deep end of the pool [without any casualties of course].
The new book page will require some thought and an outline. We can't just drop everything in there and let the users thrash around. That would defeat the overall purpose of not scaring everyone and actually providing clear steps and guidance on how to install the module. The effort up front will be worth it if fewer people request support.
Not sure it is time to work on a book page now. The maintainers have not really decided on which draft to focus on. Also this is my first time working like this and I am not sure of proper protocol. Let me know.
#22
FYI, I've just updated the README.txt and INSTALL.txt files to give information about the project and how to INSTALL or UPGRADE the module.
#23
I've updated http://drupal.org/node/264657 which is part of book http://drupal.org/handbook/modules/gsitemap.
However, http://drupal.org/node/264652, is totally wrong for 6.x so I've removed the tag identifying 6.x on the page. We need to do the same for others. Below is a list of nodes with their title from left to right page order. Most of these include the 6.x tag but I'm in favor of removing that tag from all of the pages and starting fresh. Thomasr976, do you have edit privileges to the handbooks?
XML Sitemap: notify search engines of site updates
Installing XML Sitemap
Upgrading from older versions
Setting up your site map
Adding menu items to your site map
Adding menu items in previous versions
Including views
Adding nodes to your site map
Creating specialized site maps with Views
Including node file attachments
Including node paging links
Adding taxonomy terms to your site map
Adding user profiles to your site map
Submitting your site map to search engines
Using XML Sitemap with ModSecurity™
Related modules
Writing XML Sitemap add-on modules
#24
I thought most people had edit privileges for the book pages; I can edit them, but I cannot remove the comments.
EDIT: I cannot edit some of the pages (as http://drupal.org/node/266362, i.e.)
#25
Yes, I do have edit privileges. What do you want me to do?
#26
Can you put together a book for xmlsitemap-6.x? Also untag 6.x from the nodes listed above.
#27
@ernie: I went through the list in #23 and untagged the 6.x? category. There were quite a few links though where I could not do that since all I could do was view the original and revision. Will look at what you did in #22 too and begin work tonight on the new page if that is what you want.
#28
I think so.
It may be feasible to copy some of the existing pages, replace the images and adding more appropriate text.
#29
You can sign up for a documentation editor role to resolve that. See http://drupal.org/project/documentation for more information.
#30
Thanks for the informations, earnie.
As one of the pages was for Google Sitemap, I would leave it alone; to say the truth, I will leave the page of that module alone, and create completely different pages for XML Sitemap.
Any reference to XML Sitemap in those pages should be removed, or the pages should be deleted.
#31
@ernie: Will do that and try to have something for u to look at tomorrow.
#32
@ernie: Working on getting those permission u mentioned in #29. See http://drupal.org/node/455488
#33
Please excuse these two questions but I am new at this.
1) Are we recommending the 6.x beta version for production sites or should site owners await for the stable release? If it's the latter than we might want to put something on the project page about this.
2) Which version of the project page did the mainters decide to work with?
Once I get ur feed back, will begin work on the version 6 book pages and/or project page.
#34
A beta version is never recommended, generally speaking; if you are asking for the documentation, I would avoid any references to the current development status, if not in the project page.
#35
Ok...here's a combined effort of Thomasr976's project page and my earlier proposal. Let's decide so we can get the project page changed by tomorrow. (I see you already making edits recently Kiam!) :)
----------------------
XML sitemap automatically creates a sitemap that conforms to the sitemaps.org specification, which helps search engines keep their results up to date. The module comes with several submodules that can add sitemap links to content, menus, taxonomy terms, and user profiles, and also automatically submit the sitemap to major search engines.
Which version should I use?
For Drupal 6, use 6.x-1.0-beta1. For Drupal 5, use 5.x-1.6. Both of these stable releases still have known performance and scalability issues that will be resolved in the 6.x-2.x rewrite. Always be sure to read the included INSTALL.txt for the proper procedures when installing or updating. Usage of the development snapshots is not recommended for production sites.
Known issues
Roadmap
The 6.x-2.x-dev version is a complete rewrite with considerations for performance, scalability, and reliability. This version is currently for testing and benchmarking purposes only. Upgrading is not currently supported. Once the 6.x-2.x version is tested and upgradable, the the 6.x-1.x version will no longer be supported. Those wishing to help with the re-write should read #448000: Big, Over-Arching Sitemap Architecture Discussion (tm) or http://blog.davereid.net/content/state-of-drupal-xml-sitemap-2009.
Sponsors
------------------
Does this look good? Let's get this figured out.
#36
The 404 error is not returned anymore in the case the cache files are not created for any reasons, and the sitemap is accessible from both the authenticated users, and the anonymous users.
Rather than making a reference to the current beta version available, I would use a more generic phrase that would not need to be update each time (this is the same reason of not referring any module names in the project page); actually the beta1 version could not be the latest version for long as in the next hours I could be releasing the beta2 version.
#37
Ok cool, we can remove the known issue section completely then! How's this look?
-------------------
XML sitemap automatically creates a sitemap that conforms to the sitemaps.org specification, which helps search engines keep their results up to date. The module comes with several submodules that can add sitemap links to content, menus, taxonomy terms, and user profiles, and also automatically submit the sitemap to major search engines.
Which version should I use?
For Drupal 6, use 6.x-1.0-beta1. For Drupal 5, use 5.x-1.6. Both of these stable releases still have known performance and scalability issues that will be resolved in the 6.x-2.x rewrite. Always be sure to read the included INSTALL.txt for the proper procedures when installing or updating.
Roadmap
The 6.x-2.x-dev version is a complete rewrite with considerations for performance, scalability, and reliability. This version is currently for testing and benchmarking purposes only. Upgrading is not currently supported. Once the 6.x-2.x version is tested and upgradable, the the 6.x-1.x version will no longer be supported. Those wishing to help with the re-write should read #448000: Big, Over-Arching Sitemap Architecture Discussion (tm) or http://blog.davereid.net/content/state-of-drupal-xml-sitemap-2009.
Sponsors
#38
See #36 for the reference to the beta version.
For what I know EmpowHer.com sponsored a feature, and it's not sponsoring anything, now.
#39
Yeah maybe now that we actually have a Drupal 6 compatible release listed under the green "Official releases" downloads section, we really shouldn't need that section anymore since it's quite clear which versions are official/recommended.
Re: past sponsorships, since it was only just a year ago, I think it would be still nice of us to still give EmpowHer and any past sponsors just one line at the last section of the page.
Another revision ready for review:
-------------------
XML sitemap automatically creates a sitemap that conforms to the sitemaps.org specification, which helps search engines keep their results up to date. The module comes with several submodules that can add sitemap links to content, menu items, taxonomy terms, and user profiles, and also automatically submit the sitemap to major search engines.
Before you install
Always be sure to read the included INSTALL.txt for the proper procedures when installing or updating. Also be sure to check the current bug reports for any known issues.
Development roadmap
Both of the current stable releases have known performance and scalability issues. The 6.x-2.x-dev version is a complete rewrite with considerations for performance, scalability, and reliability. This version is currently for testing and benchmarking purposes only. Upgrading is not currently supported. Once the 6.x-2.x version is tested and upgradable, the the 6.x-1.x version will no longer be supported. Those wishing to help with the re-write should read #448000: Big, Over-Arching Sitemap Architecture Discussion (tm) or http://blog.davereid.net/content/state-of-drupal-xml-sitemap-2009.
Special thanks to:
#40
The text is fine, for me.
#41
Sorry that I am late jumping in but here's my take on Dave's #39 version. In the first paragraph I think it's important to get the names of those search engines front and center. That is a major draw for this module. Second, I raise an issue for your consideration regarding the use of 6.x-1.0-beta1 version on producion sites. I also took some liberties with the Development Roadmap.
----------------------
The XML Sitemap module automatically creates a sitemap that conforms to the sitemaps.org specification. This helps search engines to more intelligently crawl a website and keep their results up to date. The sitemap created by the module can be automatically submitted to the Ask, Google, Yahoo! and Windows Live search engines. The module also comes with several submodules that can add sitemap links to content, menus, taxonomy terms, and user profiles.
Which version should I use?
For Drupal 6, use 6.x-1.0-beta1. For Drupal 5, use 5.x-1.6. Both of these releases still have known performance and scalability issues that will be resolved in the 6.x-2.x rewrite. To avoid problems, always read the included INSTALL.txt for the proper procedures when installing or updating this module. Also check the current bug reports for any known issues prior to installation.
Note in the Dave #39, we make the leap that 6.x-1.0-beta is a "stable" release but Kiam's #34 comment made me pause, because in the current xml sitemap project page we are "recommending" the beta. Are you troubled by this? Should we not at least put in some admonition that 6.x-1.0-beta is not meant for production sites? Maybe this is overkill since this is a beta, but i guess I am trying to manage people's expectations of 6.x-1.0-beta. So I just took out the reference that 6.x-1.0-beta was "stable" in the above text, however 5.x-1.6 is stable.
Development Roadmap
Both the 6.x-1.0-beta1 and 5.x-1.6 versions are functionally equivalent. However, no further work is being done on these two versions to address their known performance and scalability issues. Instead, the 6.x-2.x-dev version is undergoing a complete rewrite that will address these issues. Therefore, the 6.x-2.x-dev version is currently available for testing and benchmarking purposes only. Upgrading is not currently supported.
Once the 6.x-2.x version is tested and upgradable, the the 6.x-1.x version will no longer be supported. Those wishing to help with the re-write should read #448000: Big, Over-Arching Sitemap Architecture Discussion (tm) or http://blog.davereid.net/content/state-of-drupal-xml-sitemap-2009.
Special thanks to:
* [REMOVED: NEW UNOFFICIAL SPONSOR] for sponsoring the 6.x-2.x rewrite.
* Past sponsors: EmpowHer.
#42
I still think that is better to not put any specific reference to which 6.1 version to use.
I don't think a beta release should be recommended, also because the development snapshot actually contains almost the same code; if the beta1 works, then also the last development snapshot works (and it contains more optimized code). The reference should be kept update each time a new version is released (next will come a beta2, then a beta3, a rc1, etc...); if the page is not updated, the user would read that we recommend an older release.
#43
Why does 6.x-2.x get special recognition? Why isn't it just sponsored by a community effort?
#44
If we are not going to recommend the 6.1 beta version to users I think we have to revise the current project page (see attachment). We also have to provide some guidance to users on what they can choose.
The WYSIWYG project and document pages at http://drupal.org/project/wysiwyg and http://drupal.org/node/358296 might provide some insight, They distinguished between Active and Passive usesrs. In our case we can possibly make meaningful distinctions between the 6.x-1.0-beta1 and the dev version of 6.1 that would allow users some idea what is appropriate for their situation.
#45
That is caused by Drupal.org, which only allows to set as recommended a version of a branch, but it doesn't allow to choose between the development snapshot or the official release.
#46
The difference between the two version is that the first contains a bug that doesn't allow the creation of the cache files used for the sitemap content, while the development snapshot has a problem with the visualization of the sitemap at screen.
Frankly, I am not sure which version I would recommend. :-)
#47
@Kiam your comment made my day! :-). The key to providing guidance is to be very candid with people so they can make a "knowing decision". Given what you told me I would probably use the beta version. After all that has your attention as evidenced in http://drupal.org/node/458546.
Anyway, it is important to get some guidance out there since many users are on the fence and waiting for a stable release of this module before they convert their entire site to drupal 6. Since I'm in a situation with small D5.0 and D6.0 site, I'd do the following based on what u said:
a) On the D5.0 site, i would stick with the 5.x-1.6 for now asumming that other functionality required of other drupal 6 modules was not an overriding issue
b) If I really needed the D6 functionality I would probably use the 6.x-1.0 beta1. Besides, the beta needs to be tested in the real world. It may be good for us to ask users who ask for support or report bugs to tell us the number of nodes like I have seen you do. If the 6.x-1.0 beta1 becomes cranky, I could always disable it.
c) Wait a while longer and contribute resources to moving things along on the 6.x-2.x-dev version which would solve most of our existing problems
Would be interested @earnies, @dave reid's and @webchick's take on this. Then I'll draft something for us to look at.
#48
We can always create a beta2 now that we have a few critical bugs fixed. The latest official version should always be the recommended version. Now that we have 'official' versions for both Drupal 5 and 6 (highlighted in green even), we should remove this section from the page. It's very clear without our help which version people should download now.
@earnie: The rewrite is basically a community effort, but just like the empowher sponsorship, some companies and drupal shops have started to show interest in helping financially sponsor my free time with the rewrite, and I think that should deserve a special mention.
@Thomasr976: How does #39 look now after the recent comments?
#49
I've tagged a BETA0 release from code dated from the May 8th. I know it produces a sitemap.xml report.
#50
@david reid: My concern about #39 goes away now. So here's my take of what the project page should look like. Lifted from #41 less the comments and my understanding of what you want to do in #48. Suggest we run with this. Once done I can work on the book pages we discussed. Reference to the book pages can come later.
The XML Sitemap module automatically creates a sitemap that conforms to the sitemaps.org specification. This helps search engines to more intelligently crawl a website and keep their results up to date. The sitemap created by the module can be automatically submitted to the Ask, Google, Yahoo! and Windows Live search engines. The module also comes with several submodules that can add sitemap links to content, menus, taxonomy terms, and user profiles.
Development Roadmap
Both the 6.x-1.0-beta1 and 5.x-1.6 versions are functionally equivalent. However, no further work is being done on these two versions to address their known performance and scalability issues. Instead, the 6.x-2.x-dev version is undergoing a complete rewrite that will address these issues. Therefore, the 6.x-2.x-dev version is currently available for testing and benchmarking purposes only. Upgrading is not currently supported.
Once the 6.x-2.x version is tested and upgradable, the the 6.x-1.x version will no longer be supported. Those wishing to help with the re-write should read #448000: Big, Over-Arching Sitemap Architecture Discussion (tm) or http://blog.davereid.net/content/state-of-drupal-xml-sitemap-2009.
Special thanks to: NEW UNOFFICIAL SPONSOR] for sponsoring the 6.x-2.x rewrite.
* Past sponsors: EmpowHer.
#51
@earnie: You do realize we just went backwards in our beta numbers? The next beta should have been beta2, not beta0.
#52
First, apologies for not being able to respond; a family emergency arose just after my post.
Yes, I'm aware beta0 is before beta1 but so is the code itself. I had managed to hang onto a copy that worked for me. But I see beta2 is out, I will be testing again soon.
#53
Yes, a pain in the royal arss. We should jump onto project/project next and fix this. ;D
#54
I realize that you all have been busy with new betas etc. in version 1 and the development for 2. However, the project page really requires revision to reflect this. What's our next step with respect to the project page with regard to #50.
#55
To me, it seems fine. If it would depends only for me, the project page could be changed as you suggested.
#56
I've updated the front page with text from #50 plus some of my own. Please make comments about the current text on the page and we can tweak it as we go.
#57
The text is good; there are some parts that are repeated, like the one saying that the 6.x-1 branch will not supported anymore when the 6.x-2 branch will have an official release.
The rest seems fine, to me.
#58
I must be blind to it. Can you be more specific where you mean?
#59
Development Roadmap
[...]
Once the 6.x-2.x version is tested and upgradable, the the 6.x-1.x version will no longer be supported.
[...]
Version notes
[...]
The 6.x-0.x-dev, and 6.x-1.x-dev versions will be declared unsupported after the first public version of the 6.x-2.x branch will be available.
[...]
#60
Also, I noticed this text:
Version notes
[...]
The latest 6.x-1.x-dev commits added a setting, which can be set globally or for each user, to limit the nodes included in the sitemap to the ones authored by the users who created 100 nodes (by default); only the users who have the by-pass the authored nodes check don't have that limitation. Change the setting according to the trust level you have for the users of your web site, or give the permission to the roles you trust more.
[...]
That is not true anymore; those settings have been removed from more than a week.
#61
@ernie et al: I thought that the plan was to have a very short project page and references to a a book page to put things like the version notes, known issues, updating notes and integration with third party notes in (see #20). Perhaps this was shelved?
Anyway, my final suggestions with respect to the current project page focus on what I think is very relevant to users as follows:
Option A
1) Move the "Module Sponsors Past and Present" right before the Releases Section
2) Remove the version notes, known issues, updating notes and integration with third party notes from the project page entirely
3) Insert right after the first paragraph the following:
"Detailed infomation on known issues, upgrading, integration with third party notes and version notes can be found on the documentaton page."
Also make sure that the README.txt and INSTALLATION.text refllects the above sections
Option B
If you want to retain everything in the current project page then at least rearrange and title the items in this order after the introductory paragraph:
- Known isues
- Updating notes
- Integration with third party modules
- Development Roadmap
- Version notes
- Module Sponsors past and present
I prefer option A only because it focus on key issues about using the module. Retaining all of the material on the project page just overwhelms the reader.
#62
Thanks for redirecting us in the correct direction. The plan was, and still is that.
Option A makes more sense, to me. I take the actual text of the project page as a temporary solution until all the documentation pages are added.
#63
Thanks...do the other maintainers concur? I don't want to spend time on the documentation pages until we have agreement.
#64
I'm not a maintainer, but IMO anything is better than what's there now. I'd just move over Thomas's changes and then incrementally improve them later if required.
#65
Yes, I didn't want to remove too much before other documentation was ready to point to.
#66
@earnie: I created a documentation page for xmlsitemap version 6. Take a look at http://drupal.org/node/466548. At least you will have somewhere to point users to if you revise the project page.
#67
The documentation page looks good, but there are two points that are not clear to me.
You did an excellent work, IMO.
#68
@kiam. Thanks. I think we can clear up the first bullet by deleting the reference to views until I have a chance to research that.
For the second bullet: Would it be incorrect to state the following:
"No further work is being done to address the performance and stability problems in versions 6.x-1.0-beta3 or 5.x-1.6. However, work is continuing on the 6.x-1.x-dev version and 6.x-1.0-beta3 to make a stable 6.x-1.0 version."
I apologize if I have not gotten this quite right. Let me know if this works for you.
@ernie, @Dave Reid et al: Can we revise that Project page now that we have the beginnings of a 6.x documentation page? Also Where should the new book page go with respect to the existing documentation for #23?
#69
There is nothing to apologize for; the work you did is good, and (mostly important) is your personal contribution you volunteered for.
I would rather write however, work is continuing on the 6.x-1.x-dev version and 6.x-1.0-beta3 to make a stable 6.x-1.0 version because it's the development snapshot that is developed to create the official release; this means that to make a 6.x-1.0-beta4 version, you would change the 6.x-1.x-dev version.
About the Views reference, I remember that the support is present in the Drupal 5 branch; for the 6.x-2 branch, it should be Dave to confirm the support for the module is present (or will be present) in the branch he is working at.
#70
I've updated the project page removing a bunch of text and providing a link. Comments welcome.
#71
Re: Where the book should go.
I know there is a section for module specific books. But for the life of me I can't seem to find it at the moment.
EDIT: Eek, it's under "Getting Started". There's a section for "Contributed Modules".
#72
2ernie: Looks fine to me.......Less is More. Will proceed with the other pages, take a look at current README.txt and INSTALLATION.txt files and allow u guys to do the heavy lifting. Thanks for pointing out wher the book page should go.
#73
That is not completely true; there are parts of the code in the 6.x-2 that are taken from the 6.x-1 branch, or from previous branches.
Just to make an example, the XSL style sheet is the same there is in the 6.x-0 branch, and that I removed from the branch I am developing. Also, the support for Moreover.com has been taken from the 6.x-1 branch; I added it on request of a user, and it's barely hard somebody knows of that site, which is not even a search engine.
#74
6.x-2 branch, is a refactoring to provide performance improvements.Is that better?#75
Yes, it is. Refactoring is the word that describes better how the new branch is being developed.
You found the correct word, IMO.
#76
I am adding a shortened version of the sponsors section to the project page where it belongs. This is the standard followed by other modules.
#77
The goal has been accomplished for shortening the project page. Marking as fixed.
#78
Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.