@tlrx since you created those two new example projects, could you check if linking to those from older 6.x branches looks okay to you? I was suprised that we seem to link to master most previous versions of this doc, maybe we should link to the appropriate minor version instead? This doesn't seem to happen in most of the rest of the documentation though. Thoughts?

@cbuescher Thanks, I didn't see these links were wrong!

@tlrx since you created those two new example projects, could you check if linking to those from older 6.x branches looks okay to you

I still need to backport #28339 to 6.2/6.1/6.0 branches. It think the best it to change the links to point to each corresponding version, I can do it when I backport the PR.

@tlrx great, I didn't know there were plans to backport the example split. In that case changing the links to the current branch might be the best option. I see most external links to some repost in the docs going to ".../tree/master/..." though, so maybe we should quickly check with the docs team what the desired behaviour is here. Maybe @clintongormley has an opinion here.

I see most external links to some repost in the docs going to ".../tree/master/..." though, so maybe we should quickly check with the docs team what the desired behaviour is here.

I think we should use a link reference for the github repository, something like:

:elasticsearch-guthub: https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/tree/master/

and for all non master branch:

:elasticsearch-guthub: https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/tree/v{version}/

I think it should work.

I think we should use a link reference for the github repository, something like:

:elasticsearch-guthub: https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/tree/master/

and for all non master branch:

:elasticsearch-guthub: https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/tree/v{version}/

A problem with that is that {version} includes the patch version, so it would be 6.2.0 but for the links to the repo we would need only the major and minor (6.2). Not sure where that would be added to the docs build.

There is a {branch} attribute which will give you what you need.

@cbuescher Is there anything preventing this from being merged?

@tlrx I pushed an update that links to the current branch of the example plugins, it can be updated as soon (or if) #28339 gets backported, but will correct the links in the meantime. Can you take another quick look?

@tlrx thanks, will remove the above mentioned bullet point when porting this back.