GeezerVison

Also: is this NEWS-worthy?

Also: is this NEWS-worthy?

I don't see a need for one here, I think the docs speak for themselves.

Documentation build overview

📚 cpython-previews | 🛠️ Build #34528081 | 📁 Comparing e02ea99 against main (852381e)

  🔍 Preview build  

I can do the renames and redirects.

We can do redirects at client side (using one of the various Sphinx extensions) or sever side (by configuring them in python/psf-salt).

What Sphinx extension have we used for redirects before? I see https://github.com/python/psf-salt/blob/main/salt/docs/config/nginx.docs-redirects.conf for the psf-salt approach.

What Sphinx extension have we used for redirects before?

We use sphinxext-rediraffe in the Devguide, it generates stubs with some JS to redirect to the new page.

What Sphinx extension have we used for redirects before?

We use sphinxext-rediraffe in the Devguide, it generates stubs with some JS to redirect to the new page.

I knew rediraffe was somewhere! Is there a reason we don't want to introduce it for the main docs?

Is there a reason we don't want to introduce it for the main docs?

I presume it's simply because there hasn't really been a need so far. We're less keen to move pages here than in the Devguide. IIRC rediraffe requires JS, but that ship has sailed anyway.

Server-side psf-salt redirects would be better than client-side sphinxext-rediraffe: they work with JavaScript disabled (better for all the scrapers and bots), are faster on server-side (HTTP layer before any HTML fetched), and get cached in the CDN, and better for SEO.

We don't have such server-side control for the devguide, which is hosted on GitHub Pages. (Also I'd say client-side JS redirects are fine for the less-important devguide.)

That all makes sense. Do we have a way to coordinate the updates to psf-salt with updates to the docs, especially with backports involved?

(There's no documented process I'm afraid) You can open a PR there and limit the redirect to specific Python versions. I can review and merge when we land this.

Moving pages causes the "removed HTML IDs" check to fail. The IDs aren't gone, they are in a different page. Do I still add them to removed-ids.txt?

Do I still add them to removed-ids.txt?

Yes, see the line with an asyncio file for the required format.

Thanks @nedbat for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

Sorry, @nedbat, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.15 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.

cherry_picker 59c4bddb1762b4706c942d6403fb8df470f37e05 3.15

Sorry, @nedbat, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.14 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.

cherry_picker 59c4bddb1762b4706c942d6403fb8df470f37e05 3.14

Sorry, @nedbat, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.13 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.

cherry_picker 59c4bddb1762b4706c942d6403fb8df470f37e05 3.13

GH-157440 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch.

GH-157441 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch.

GH-157442 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.15 branch.

I've added server-side redirects in python/psf-salt#651.