I personally would keep pymc.io as a separated website. It is a different domain and it might be even more confusing for users to see the navbar maintained but different domains. AFAIK, all similar projects have multiple clearly separated websites:
- Numpy: https://numpy.org/ and NumPy documentation — NumPy v1.22 Manual (accessible from the “Documentation” navbar element)
- xarray: https://xarray.dev/ and xarray: N-D labeled arrays and datasets in Python
- bokeh: http://bokeh.org/ and Bokeh documentation — Bokeh 2.4.3 Documentation
- matplotlib: https://matplotlib.org/ and Matplotlib documentation — Matplotlib 3.5.2 documentation
- scikit-learn: scikit-learn: machine learning in Python — scikit-learn 1.1.1 documentation and https://blog.scikit-learn.org/ (now accessible from the community navbar item)
Not a strong preference at all though.
I think that as @cluhmann points, now that we have pymc.io we can restructure our websites (common navbar or not) to have a more sensible and coherent strucutre. IMO, the key, most important and irrenounceable difference between the websites are the different versioning schemes (which means they need to be build and updated independently from one another).
As I commented on slack:
- pymc.io has no versions. It is a single website that gets updated automatically
- docs.pymc.io has versions tied to the versions of the pymc library, and defaults to showing the docs of the stable version
-
docs.pymc.io/projects/examples (aka pymc-examples) has independent versions/snapshots (2-3 a year, not necessarly tied to pymc releases) and defaults to
latest. That means that new or updated notebooks show on the default website immediately instead of having to wait for a new release to see the changes
So answering which pages we want to have in each versioning scheme should indicate where should they be. i.e. we should probably move the community, maybe even contributing section to pymc.io as I don’t think they need to be versioned following pymc releases. The homepage should also imo be pymc.io because I don’t think the homepage should be versioned, it should have the highlights most important info about the library, not version specific content…
I very much agree with making the nabvar between docs and examples to be the same.
Also agreed on having the homepage at pymc.io. I would have more info on the homepage though (whatever theme/navbar we choose). See this comment for longer description on this.
Tags and a gallery looking page are completely independent, the tags are on the sidebar, we need to update the page content to write these cards with notebook titles. This should be possible combining code from pymc/gallery_generator.py at v3 · pymc-devs/pymc · GitHub (to get the images from the notebooks) and arviz/gallery_generator.py at main · arviz-devs/arviz · GitHub (to structure how to automatically write the rst/markdown page with the cards using sphinx-design). That being said, I don’t really know how sphinx extensions work and don’t want to maintain this alone if we go down this path.
I strongly disagree with removing the contributing element/section though.
- I think we should strive to make the division between user and contributor as blurry as possible, and I think this goes against this
- Most of the content is currently code based with some doc centric pages, but I think we should work on extending this, and not all contributions require using GitHub.
- I think it is much better to read pages rendered from the docs. We can use note/warning/tip boxes to highlight specific sentences, we can use tabs/dropdowns for alternative content or recommendations that are not vital to understanding all the page, we can link between pages and to api pages much more easily and robustly (we already use all this in different pages of the contributing section)