Simplify core versions table #4063
Assignees
Labels
content
Improvements or additions to content
improvement
Use this when an area of the docs needs improvement as it's currently unclear
Comments
mirnawong1
added
content
|
Assigned to myself. Have an upcoming meeting with Grace on the product team to revamp this and potentially remove the future versions |
matthewshaver
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 13, 2023
## What are you changing in this pull request and why? Removing the future release dates table from the release page Closes: #4063 ## Checklist - [x] Review the [Content style guide](https://github.com/dbt-labs/docs.getdbt.com/blob/current/contributing/content-style-guide.md) and [About versioning](https://github.com/dbt-labs/docs.getdbt.com/blob/current/contributing/single-sourcing-content.md#adding-a-new-version) so my content adheres to these guidelines. - [x] Add a checklist item for anything that needs to happen before this PR is merged, such as "needs technical review" or "change base branch."
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Contributions
Link to the page on docs.getdbt.com requiring updates
Per discussion here with @dbeatty10 , we should simplify the core versions table (and possibly automate it) in the future to have less manual maintenance.
first proposal (Mirna's)
combining both upcoming releases and latest release table. there's still some manual updates but at least it's updating once.
one thing i was trying to do was see if i can add a dynamic badge that displays the release date but i can't seem to do it other than it being static. but it would be cool to have a badge that can automatically reflect the release date (and maybe even release status) Microsoft does this similarly
the reason i sugg the unified table approach is because in the future, we'd have to update all 3 tables when a version changes. another reason is - what makes an 'unsupported version' unsupported? 1.0-1.2 are still available in dbt cloud and i think it's confusing to say they're 'unsupported' when they're still available in cloud. see slack thread for context on orgs upgrading.
second proposal (Doug's)
From the perspective of a human trying to visually read the information, I'm also most attracted to three separate tables.
From the perspective of trying to ingest this data into a database table (or trying to keep thing in sync when updating 😉), then I'd prefer one unified table.
So my preference is something like this:
Planned future releases
Future release dates are tentative and subject to change.
Supported Versions
Unsupported Versions
*All versions of dbt Core since v1.0 are available in dbt Cloud until further notice. Versions that are EOL do not receive any fixes. For the best support, we recommend upgrading to a version released within the past 12 months.
Summary
I don't have strong feeling on the table placement, row ordering, or table format of the "planned future releases". But my eye and brain does prefer it to be visually separated from the "supported" and "unsupported" releases.
The emojis were a little intense for me (and they shouldn't be necessary with separate tables), so I dropped them above so we can see how it looks and feels.
What part(s) of the page would you like to see updated?
https://docs.getdbt.com/docs/dbt-versions/core
Additional information
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: