How come we already have 2.14.x docs? We haven't cut an rc for 2.14 yet

I forked it yesterday because Tom was creating a new Kotlin page. I figured now that we have in-repo docs, there's no downside to "prematurely forking" like we used to have -- we land changes on

main

, then cherry-pick to 2.13. Whereas before, we changed 2.13 then forward-ported to main Does that make sense?

It's visible to end users at the moment

And it's just another thing to keep in sync, the new docs process is already somewhat laborious

How so? The new docs process is that we already must be keeping things in sync -- when you make a PR that impacts bheavior, you are expected to fix docs or open a ticket to track it

Which is just confusing

Imo not that confusing -- we have the 2.14 dev releases already out. But fine with me to hide it

None of what you're saying requires the 2.14 docs to exist on readme.com though

okay, do you want us to delete the 2.14 fork then? fine with me

@happy-kitchen-89482 We require a development branch to track

main

— current agreed practice is to create a

beta

version that tracks the future release

I don't understand - why would readme care what we have in

main

if we're not syncing it up?

I think we should be syncing development version docs as a matter of course (most open source projects do this): 1. We don’t have a way of verifying whether they render correctly on Readme without syncing them to readme, and it’s better to catch errors as they’re introduced rather than during the audit cycle 2. It’s easier to switch between docs versions on Readme, so if features have changed significantly between stable and

main

, it’d be good to find all of the docs in the same place (it makes no sense to go looking for dev docs in-repo and stable docs at Readme)

We can have a

main

version of the docs, with the implication that they are unstable etc, but it's not awesome for users to see 2.12, 2.13 beta and 2.14 beta as options

Readme requires a numbered version

GODDAMNIT README

correct

it is, but then when we rename to

2.14

, it will break all prior links. Maybe fine? I guess we don't link a ton to docs for

main

the other alternative is to have

main

be labelled as

2.999-development

(beta) all the time

Ech

I don't think it's that big of a deal to have 2.13 and 2.14 both be in beta? That's how our release process works - no need to hide it It should be clear 2.12 is what's stable

I don't like it, but whatever

neither. The joy of inadequate tools 🤷

so then are we fine keeping up the 2.14 docs I created? I agree w/ Chris I think it's helpful to have

main

style docs for early adopters

"fine" is overstating it... but yeah

heh I'm very on board w/ moving to Sphinx, when we have the itme