Rename repo to nodejs.org

[Fishrock123]

We should do this soon, and rename the old one to something else.

cc @nodejs/website, @mikeal

[fhemberger]

How about nodejs.org-archive, like the old node-code?

[robertkowalski]

+1 good idea

Am Samstag, 12. September 2015 schrieb Frederic Hemberger :

How about nodejs.org-archive, like the old node-code?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#147 (comment)
.

[joepie91]

One concern: if you rename the new repository to what the old repository was called, you'd cause linkrot - anything pointing at the nodejs.org repository would suddenly be pointing at the wrong repo, ie. causing dead links.

Perhaps a better approach would be to rename it to nodejs.org-v2 or something along those lines? Then it'd still be clear what the newest repository is, without breaking the redirects that (I believe) GitHub sets when renaming a repository.

[Fishrock123]

The same thing happened with the io.js to node move.

I'd prefer to go with what makes the most sense for the current repo, which would be to rename this to nodejs.org. :/

Ideally we would have renamed the old site before moving it over here.

[joepie91]

I'd say it's pretty important not to break existing links, personally. There should be plenty of ways to name the new repository without causing confusion.

[therebelrobot]

I'm with @Fishrock123 on this one. With the website repo, we're most concerned about people finding the current code, rather than keeping links working with a legacy version. If node itself is doing this with the io.js merge, I say keep the same mode of operation here. We can put a notice in the readme pointing to legacy versions if it's a big issue.

As for naming the old one, maybe legacy.nodejs.org or nodejs.org-legacy? archive makes me think of old versions of node rather than the website.

[joepie91]

Notices wouldn't help for that, though. For example, if one cross-references an issue on the website repository from another repository (or site!), that link will just end up in a 404 (or, worse, in an unrelated ticket). Those most affected by it would never get to see the notice.

Issues and commits are technical documentation, and breaking references to that really isn't a good idea. I don't really see the issue with a different name, either - it'd be fairly trivial and time-cheap to find a different name (nodejs.org-site, ...), and avoid the collision altogether, whereas the cost of creating a collision is rather high.

[iancrowther]

Is there a mechanism for users to report dead links? I just raised a similar concern to @joepie91

#153

[fhemberger]

There's a link on the footer to report issues for the website as well as node.js itself.

@therebelrobot: We have nodejs/node-v0.x-archive and nodejs/node-convergence-archive for old code, so IMHO it would make sense to rename the old website repo nodejs/nodejs.org-archive as well.

At least according to Google, there don't seem to be pages linking to the old repository:
https://www.google.com/?q=link:github.com%2Fjoyent%2Fnodejs.org
https://www.google.com/?q=link:github.com%2Fnodejs%2Fnodejs.org

[phillipj]

Looking at github's own stats for referring sites against the nodejs.org repo the last 14 days, shows Google sends alot of users though.

IMO we should go ahead and rename the repos asap to stop confusing end-users and new contributors about which repo/project are currently deployed to nodejs.org.

[phillipj]

The traffic against the current nodejs.org repo is quickly declining. Updated stats, still the last 14 days:

👍 for @fhemberger suggestions

• nodejs.org -> nodejs/nodejs.org-archive
• new.nodejs.org -> nodejs/nodejs.org

Are we ready to do this @nodejs/website?

[joepie91]

I do want to reiterate again that this change will permanently and irrevocably break documentation references, and this is bad. Google does not necessarily show the entirety of these references, and it should not be assumed that there are none.

It is very easy to avoid this, by renaming to a repository name that isn't identical but still obviously the right one.

[Fishrock123]

this change will permanently and irrevocably break documentation references, and this is bad.

The longer this repo remains, the worse it will be. Also, I'd like to know what documentation references link to the repo of the nodejs.org website?

[joepie91]

The longer this repo remains, the worse it will be.

That is a reason to accelerate discussion of a new name, not to accelerate the renaming to a reused name.

Also, I'd like to know what documentation references link to the repo of the nodejs.org website?

This is not a question that can be conclusively answered, which is why it should not be assumed to be 'none'. There can exist references anywhere, publicly, in internal documentation, and so forth.