Page 1 of 1
Can't access the Blender 2.5 wiki pages
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:33 am
I can access the 2.4x, and 2.6 wiki pages, but selecting 2.5 from the dropdown listbox takes me to the 2.6 pages.
Even google search results targeting 2.5 wiki pages go to the 2.6 version of the page.
Please help as this breaks quite a bit of backlinks to the 2.5 pages.
I see the "maintenance" message on the wiki page, but it seems to be addressing a different issue (a problem accessing 2.6 pages?).
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:49 am
Version 2.6x is the 'standard' version of New Blender. The 2.5x series was essentially an in-transition development version and will not be documented.
Given the state of bug-fixes and new features, the latest (2.61) is the preferred version.
The old Blender documentation will remain available.
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:04 pm
Well...that really is an awful decision.
Why not just let the existing pages simply exist? Why create confusion for the documentation?
Why is the documentation for 2.49 still available? It existed and is still used. Blender 2.5x existed and is still used. What's the problem?
Why pretend that 2.5x never existed? Many people have books, magazine articles, videos, products, websites, etc. targeting 2.5x. Why break all of the backlinks in the community? What is gained by doing this?
These are the types of decisions that make open source less attractive. This causes confusion for no real purpose whatsoever.
This is disappointing.
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:18 pm
At the very least, as a matter of consideration for Blender users, please remove the "Blender 2.5" option from the manual version listbox. Selecting 2.5 shows documentation for 2.6. That makes sense to someone?
It might also be a good idea to make a community announcement that the Foundation considers wiki documentation for 2.5x to be null and void, and will no longer be made available. I'm sure the community response would be similar to mine...bewilderment, questioning, confusion. It defies logic.
Plenty of people have not migrated to 2.6x. We all know this to be true. There are still plenty of 2.49 users (professional and amateur). People have their reasons for sticking with a particular Blender version long after the "new" versions arrive.
I think this idea of removing the 2.5x documentation is pretty rude and inconsiderate. Just simply leave it alone. What is the problem with that? Why create confusion and inconsistency?
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:28 pm
Why is the documentation for 2.49 still available?
Because 2.49 is a stable version that is still in use. There are lots of plug-ins that have not been ported to New Blender and only work in 2.49. There is a whole interweb full of tutorials that are specific to Old Blender.
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:05 pm
So, Blender 2.5x never became stable? Hmm.
There isn't a whole interweb full of tutorials for Blender 2.5x? Hmm.
You might want to look around the interweb a little more.
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:58 pm
Yes, there were all kinds of tutorials for the 2.5x releases to help people with the changes from 2.49. But during that time the 'x' changed every few weeks and often broke/changed things from the previous 'x'. -Most- of the 2.5 tutorials still work with 2.6, but you may run into things that no longer exist, or are inside a different menu.
The API is nailed down now with 2.6. There shouldnt be any major layout/feature breaking changes from this point. (until 2.7 or whatever the next series is)
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:22 pm
Alright, I guess it's not that big of deal.
It just strikes me as a bit strange to pretend (in the documentation) that 2.5x didn't exist but still have remnants that reference it in the documentation.
Plus, all of the google links to the 2.5x wiki that now direct people to the 2.6 equivalent. If a person searches for something specifically for 2.5x, they tend to expect the link to take them to something specifically for 2.5x.....even if yada yada.
It just seems kind of sloppy, and prone to generate unnecessary questions for those who aren't so initiated into the inner workings and history of Blender's development.
I still don't see why it was a problem to simply leave it alone.
Anyway, thanks for the time, stiv and Tehrasha.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:22 am