-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 489
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
empty pages in documentation navigation tree #7766
Comments
Some linux fun:
Produces the following list of files that are suspiciously empty:
|
Q: I have updated page on use of geonetwork 2.0 harvester, but is that even still present in then GN4 codebase? |
The next step for me is to remove the six blank pages, I have checked the sphinx 4.x, 3.x and 2.x manuals for content. Assessment from chat with Juan:
Does anyone wish to speak up before these pages are removed? It would be fine to keep these pages with a placeholder sentence if the feature exists (not very helpful but it would be something) |
linking-others:
|
) * Update revise use of empty or mostly empty pages Addresses #7766 * Guidance on use of GeoNetwork 2.0 harvester * Adjust nav tree for batchupdate options To prevent duplication of title in the nav bar. All URL paths remain the same. This takes advantage of batchupdate/index.md being treated as a navigation header. --------- Co-authored-by: Jody Garnett <[email protected]>
It looks like some items remain empty |
@jodygarnett Hello and thanks for this cue to me who was confused by empty pages in the documentation. However, it seems, even more pages are empty now compared to your report at the top of this issue
https://docs.geonetwork-opensource.org/3.12/user-guide/workflow/versioning/ is empty now. We have version 3 and I am not sure we can have versioning or not. |
The versioning is now super easy, you can see changes and restore. We do need someone to write content for that page. You should update as 3.12 reached end of life earlier this year. |
@jodygarnett Thanks for the information. We had compatibility issues with version 4: we need support for the OAI-PMH protocol and it isn't supported in version 4, only in version 3 - correct? This is why we're deliberately still on version 3. |
You may consider porting the OAI-PMH protocol to version 4 - if that is the only thing holding you back. It is not very much difference for version 4 for the protocols. Most of the change is the use of Elasticsearch. It is not a sustainable approach to stay on an old version. You may wish to ask if any other folks are interested in OAI-PMH support (often collaborating on development / testing / funding can be effective). Indeed that is all of this is one :P |
Hi @jodygarnett thanks for our input! We are doing so many (dev) things with so few people in the public sector - the to-do lists are so long that I doubt we can contribute with code (reviews) to this ourselves anytime soon, unfortunately. Nonetheless, we'd like to keep Geonetwork for the growing need to manage and harvest metadata in an automated way. I followed up on the issue here and @ticheler asked me to contact him about the missing code review, which I just did. |
Yeah this is an example of where open source is not free - it is paid for with time. Do ask on the geonetwork-devel list if other parties are interested in OAI-PMH also. Talk with @ticheler - ideally several folks can provide funding (if not time) for a GeoNetwork version 4 migration path. |
@jodygarnett OK, where do I find the "geonetwork-devel list"? And wouldn't I have to rather a kind of user list instead of a dev list to find out if other users would be interested? Thanks again 🙏 |
Both would be good to contact, indeed. |
Sorry again for hijacking this thread - where do I find both? Thank you 🙏 |
This page of the website has the email list information https://geonetwork-opensource.org/community.html In the coming weeks we will move to a forum (which allows sign-in using GitHub). |
Describe the bug
A number of pages are empty in the documentation navigation tree, usually these are lost during major version updates (2 -> 3, 3 -> 4), but I am concerned that some may of been lost during recent
mkdocs
format conversion.Initial report:
review
Additional context
Please check prior sphinx-build docs in case of mkdocs format conversion problem.
We can re-convert any missing pages a file at a time.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: