This pull requestfixes 1539 alerts when mergingee16eeb intoae49ba9 -view on LGTM.com

fixed alerts:

• 952 for Variable defined multiple times
• 310 for Unused import
• 166 for Unused local variable
• 39 for Unreachable code
• 32 for Constant in conditional expression or statement
• 11 for Implicit string concatenation in a list
• 9 for Unhashable object hashed
• 9 for Suspicious unused loop iteration variable
• 7 for Module is imported more than once
• 2 for First parameter of a method is not named 'self'
• 2 for Except block handles 'BaseException'

An example of this working:https://jklymak.github.io/matplotlib.github.com/stable/index.html

ping@dstansby as well as@QuLogic and@tacaswell, as I think he has some experience and comments about organizing the webpage.

How do we update this? Please update the release manager docs.

I think the changes in the second commit ofmatplotlib/matplotlib#19319 take care of that...

Basically:

• build into3.3.4 (as before)
• linkstable to3.3.4/ (don't do the rsync step)
• editsitemap.xml

Does this not replace everything at the top-level, thus deleting all the old versions of files without redirect? And will continue to do that for every release that deleted files?

Nothing is "redirected". Its just soft linked. Everything that used to be top level and is also in 3.3.3 is soft linked tostable.stable is soft linked to3.3.3/. When you do a release and change the softlinkstable to3.3.4 it should just link there instead of3.3.3 and all the old top-level links will now point to3.3.4

So considerresources. This PR removed the top-levelresources and replaced it by a soft link toresources->stable/resources. You can now pointstable wherever you want and so long as it has resources subdirectorymatplotlib.org/resources will resolve to it.

Oh, I think I misunderstood you. Do you mean if/3.3.3/boo/foo.html exists, but is removed in/3.3.4/boo, it should stay at/boo/foo.html? Now that I look at what we do, I guess that is indeed what we do.

I'd argue that is a mistake though - why would we keep files around that are only in old versions?

It's not that wewant to do this; it's just that it would break many old links, and@tacaswell would rather we put in redirects there. We haven't done this though, because there are tons of leftovers at this point.

Well put me firmly in the camp of "no link is better than an obsolete link". We can add a nice 404 message that explains how to search the old versions.

However as a stopgap we could just add the Sitamap.XMl and add a robots.txt that tells search engines to stop crawling the top level.

A less destructive version is at#48.

I'll close in favour of#49, which conserves all old files as well...