website: Make latest release (1.7) be default manual

[wader]

Fixes issue with confusion about features that has not been released yet.

Move deveopment manual.yml to dev/manual.yml Symlink manual.yml to v1.7/manual.yml Refactor to share history header with links to other manual versions. Change man.test and man page generation to use dev/manual.yml

Related to https://github.com/jqlang/jq/issues/3078 https://github.com/jqlang/jq/issues/3127

[wader]

Looks like this:

Tested locally doing jq/docs$ pipenv run python3.12 build_website.py and serve output directory using this Caddyfile:

{
    debug
}

http://localhost:3000 {
    root /jq/* output
    uri strip_prefix /jq
    file_server
}

[wader]

I wonder what to do about jqplay links in the dev manual that won't work 🤔 add some warning somewhere or make jqplay version-aware? (might confuse ppl also)

[wader]

This is nice. Thank you!

Yeap hope it will address some confusion

My slight concern is the abbreviated name dev in the path, but I think that's ok.

Same as branch name might be good? but ok to merge this now as is and rename later if we decide to rename default branch?

BTW should we consider follow the trend of inclusiveness and change the default branch name? If we choose develop, I'd like to align the path of the manual, but if main, I don't care.

Fine with me too. Only concern i have would be that there are build scripts etc out there explicitly specifying "master"?

[itchyny]

We should avoid changing the path as much as possible, we'll have to implement redirect for the links in other websites.

[wader]

We should avoid changing the path as much as possible, we'll have to implement redirect for the links in other websites.

Good point, i was mostly concerned to not break the "default" manual /jq/manual URL in this change. So should we change /jq/manual/dev to /jq/manual/master in this PR?

[itchyny]

I don't think /master/ in the path is a good name. I was just worried about the case /dev/ for develop branch. But anyway, I think it's better to fix the manual confusion soon rather than waisting time for misalignment against the default branch name in the future. So I'm ok with merging this now. Any thoughts from other maintainers?

[wader]

Merge?

[wader]

@itchyny ok to merge?