You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@subversion.apache.org by je...@apache.org on 2010/02/03 08:09:43 UTC
svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Author: jerenkrantz
Date: Wed Feb 3 07:09:43 2010
New Revision: 905916
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905916&view=rev
Log:
* site-nav.html: Put a link to HACKING on the left-side 'cuz I spent way too
much time looking for it...and failing.
Modified:
subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Modified: subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html?rev=905916&r1=905915&r2=905916&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html (original)
+++ subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html Wed Feb 3 07:09:43 2010
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
<li><a href="/mailing-lists.html">Mailing Lists</a></li>
<li><a href="/issue-tracker.html">Issue Tracker</a></li>
<li><a href="/contributing.html">Getting Involved</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/docs/community-guide/">HACKING</a></li>
<!-- li><a href="/dev/">Developer Resources</a></li -->
</ul>
</li>
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:00 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> No, it wasn't linked anywhere on the sidebar. It wasn't even
>> mentioned on the top-half of the "Getting Involved" - the only link I
>> found is in the second-to-last bullet point of that page. In my
>> school of web design, that is a very hidden link. So, it must mean
>> that the content is very un-important to us. I feel that the content
>> is much more important and deserves a more prominent shout-out.
>
> For the record, I agree that the "Getting Involved" page should make much,
> much more reference to the HACKING document. What's there is just a first
> draft, really, whipped up by Mark and myself to get something in place.
> Many of the points need to be fleshed out a bit with specific details and
> references to "the way we do things 'round here".
Sure. But, yet, I don't grok the opposition to adding a link until
the HACKING document is split up and fully integrated with the
"Getting Involved" page? It's not like we can't replace the HACKING
link (or whatever term you feel more comfortable with) when we get
around to doing something better on the "Getting Involved" page.
As we constantly say around here, the perfect should not be the enemy
of the good. =) -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> No, it wasn't linked anywhere on the sidebar. It wasn't even
> mentioned on the top-half of the "Getting Involved" - the only link I
> found is in the second-to-last bullet point of that page. In my
> school of web design, that is a very hidden link. So, it must mean
> that the content is very un-important to us. I feel that the content
> is much more important and deserves a more prominent shout-out.
For the record, I agree that the "Getting Involved" page should make much,
much more reference to the HACKING document. What's there is just a first
draft, really, whipped up by Mark and myself to get something in place.
Many of the points need to be fleshed out a bit with specific details and
references to "the way we do things 'round here".
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Getting Involved page is not for you, it is for completely new
>> users coming to the community. HACKING is completely useless to those
>> people, or at least completely overwhelming. I do not see any intent
>> to hide HACKING. The only reason it is hard to find is because you
>> are specifically looking for something called HACKING as if that is
>> some kind of universal standard that anyone else would be looking for.
>> The link to the file was already easily acceptable from the expected
>> places.
>
> No, it wasn't linked anywhere on the sidebar. It wasn't even
> mentioned on the top-half of the "Getting Involved" - the only link I
> found is in the second-to-last bullet point of that page. In my
> school of web design, that is a very hidden link. So, it must mean
> that the content is very un-important to us. I feel that the content
> is much more important and deserves a more prominent shout-out.
It is linked prominently on the Documentation page and then there are
various context links from the Getting Involved page. To me, the
Documentation page is the natural place I would have expected to find
it.
http://subversion.apache.org/docs/
>>> I really dislike how we keep punting around one of the community's
>>> most important files simply because...
>>>
>>> So, no, we need to emphasize that content even more - which means it
>>> needs to be in the NavBar somewhere. I'm open for ideas how to best
>>> do it, but the previous state of things was simply not acceptable in
>>> my opinion. -- justin
>>
>> Sorry, I do not buy it. It sounds like the issue is just that you
>> want it called HACKING. If the existing link had called it that, I
>> doubt that you would have had any trouble finding it. How many people
>> do we really have to educate on the name change? 20? If that is too
>> much to handle, then fine call it HACKING. It still does not belong
>> as a link in the nav bar.
>
> I am not attached to the phrase "HACKING" at all - I'd be fine with it
> called "Developer Guide to Contributing to Subversion" on the sidebar,
> but I felt that was too long and would cause the text of the page to
> shrink considerably. I am very open to other names for the side-bar
> link - as long as it makes it clear what the content is.
>
> This content is simply too important to this community to hide several
> levels down. I'm sorry that you don't see it's value, but I feel that
> document is probably the *most* important document we have as a
> community. -- justin
What is wrong with the Docs page though? How long before someone
decides linking to our API docs is critical? We need to make some
decisions on the nav bar and I do not think it makes sense for this
document to be there.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Getting Involved page is not for you, it is for completely new
> users coming to the community. HACKING is completely useless to those
> people, or at least completely overwhelming. I do not see any intent
> to hide HACKING. The only reason it is hard to find is because you
> are specifically looking for something called HACKING as if that is
> some kind of universal standard that anyone else would be looking for.
> The link to the file was already easily acceptable from the expected
> places.
No, it wasn't linked anywhere on the sidebar. It wasn't even
mentioned on the top-half of the "Getting Involved" - the only link I
found is in the second-to-last bullet point of that page. In my
school of web design, that is a very hidden link. So, it must mean
that the content is very un-important to us. I feel that the content
is much more important and deserves a more prominent shout-out.
>> I really dislike how we keep punting around one of the community's
>> most important files simply because...
>>
>> So, no, we need to emphasize that content even more - which means it
>> needs to be in the NavBar somewhere. I'm open for ideas how to best
>> do it, but the previous state of things was simply not acceptable in
>> my opinion. -- justin
>
> Sorry, I do not buy it. It sounds like the issue is just that you
> want it called HACKING. If the existing link had called it that, I
> doubt that you would have had any trouble finding it. How many people
> do we really have to educate on the name change? 20? If that is too
> much to handle, then fine call it HACKING. It still does not belong
> as a link in the nav bar.
I am not attached to the phrase "HACKING" at all - I'd be fine with it
called "Developer Guide to Contributing to Subversion" on the sidebar,
but I felt that was too long and would cause the text of the page to
shrink considerably. I am very open to other names for the side-bar
link - as long as it makes it clear what the content is.
This content is simply too important to this community to hide several
levels down. I'm sorry that you don't see it's value, but I feel that
document is probably the *most* important document we have as a
community. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>> Dude, please revert this change. One of the problems I'd like to get away
>> from with this new website is broken idea that "if it's something I need, it
>> must be something everybody needs". Our left-nav isn't a Site Map (though I
>> wouldn't mind one bit if it pointed to one). Secondly, I consider it really
>> poor form to have links in a site's primary navigation menu lead to
>> destinations that lack that menu. But thirdly, I just don't think the world
>> should suffer that out-of-place link simply because you apparently couldn't
>> manage to take the first hit from a Google search for "Subversion HACKING".
>>
>> I've committed some changes to the Documentation page that, I hope, will
>> hope you and others find the HACKING document more easily in the future.
>
> I'm sorry, but content in HACKING should be easily found - and when
> you intentionally hide it like we are doing, I think it hurts the
> community. I find the "Getting Involved" page - as written - to be
> completely useless compared to what is in HACKING.
The Getting Involved page is not for you, it is for completely new
users coming to the community. HACKING is completely useless to those
people, or at least completely overwhelming. I do not see any intent
to hide HACKING. The only reason it is hard to find is because you
are specifically looking for something called HACKING as if that is
some kind of universal standard that anyone else would be looking for.
The link to the file was already easily acceptable from the expected
places.
> I really dislike how we keep punting around one of the community's
> most important files simply because...
>
> So, no, we need to emphasize that content even more - which means it
> needs to be in the NavBar somewhere. I'm open for ideas how to best
> do it, but the previous state of things was simply not acceptable in
> my opinion. -- justin
Sorry, I do not buy it. It sounds like the issue is just that you
want it called HACKING. If the existing link had called it that, I
doubt that you would have had any trouble finding it. How many people
do we really have to educate on the name change? 20? If that is too
much to handle, then fine call it HACKING. It still does not belong
as a link in the nav bar.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:44 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
>>> All I'm asking is that we add something somewhere in a prominent place
>>>> that *clearly* points to our document that says: "If you are
>>>> contributing to the Subversion project, please read this first".
>>>> Nothing more, nothing less.
>>>
>>> This would be good to add in the Getting Involved page.
>>
>> Agreed. (And committed.)
>
> This is progress - but I still think a link on the sidebar to
> "Subversion Community Guide" is warranted.
I think we should just restore the concept of a "Developer Resources"
page as we originally planned. This could hold a link to hacking and
the API docs for now, and eventually maybe more as we have things to
link to.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But as I said before, I have zero objection to splitting it up. I
> just do not think it will make it easier to work with.
Since we're already having fun with mod_include, here's my suggestion:
- Split it up into several files - likely with a distinct navbar
- For one page, have mod_include dynamically concat all of the
sub-pages into one large file for those doing the ctrl+f thing-ma-bob
I can try to take a pass at this and see how it fares. I think I got
an idea how to make it pretty manageable without making it too painful
to edit. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
>> My hunch is that HACKING probably ought to be split up rather than
>> kept as a monolithic big guide.
>
> I've already lost one battle for splitting up HACKING, so you can wage this
> one yourself, buddy. :-)
Since I was the biggest advocate for keeping it a single file, I will
repeat my reasons for Justin. The point I had made was that HACKING
contains a lot of content that we all know exists in the document
"somewhere". If we break the document up into chunks, we are just
going to make it harder to find what we are looking for (Justin's use
case being a great example). With it in a single file, Ctrl-F in the
browser makes it really simple to find stuff fast. If we break it up
then we are just going to be having fights about what the right
groupings should be, and when you want to find one specific thing it
will be frustrating.
But as I said before, I have zero objection to splitting it up. I
just do not think it will make it easier to work with.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 04:42:36PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > FWIW, I think we should emulate the side-bar on http://activemq.apache.org/
> >
> > *hides from C-Mike's screaming*
>
> How can one scream when one is an OCD-induced coma? :-)
I like the way they have links in that side-bar labeled "More ..."
Stefan
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> FWIW, I think we should emulate the side-bar on http://activemq.apache.org/
>
> *hides from C-Mike's screaming*
How can one scream when one is an OCD-induced coma? :-)
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:22 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> Oh, yuck. In the wrong frame of mind, this reads like "I'm taking my toys
> and going home." That's not the intent. Was just trying to say that I'm
> cognizant of my tendency to be a stickler for certain ideals even at the
> cost of other more valuable things, and I don't want to hinder progress on
> this matter.
I deeply appreciate the need to keep the design clean and honest. So,
I hope you continue to brow beat the rest of us if we start to go off
the rails.
FWIW, I think we should emulate the side-bar on http://activemq.apache.org/
*hides from C-Mike's screaming*
*grin* Yah, *that* navbar is a bit...um...overkill. *grin* -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> It's becoming more clear to me every moment that my personal design
> philosophies don't gel with apparent community needs and inherited policies.
> That's fine -- on my list of Major Life Problems, this doesn't even rate a
> footnote. If I'm honest with myself (which folks really should be), I was
> far more disgusted by the actual content (it's duplication, it's redundancy,
> and it's browbeating of casual visitors) of our previous website than about
> its navigation menu. So if the worst thing that happens is that we have a
> bunch of "offsite" links in our menu, I'm still basically happy.
Oh, yuck. In the wrong frame of mind, this reads like "I'm taking my toys
and going home." That's not the intent. Was just trying to say that I'm
cognizant of my tendency to be a stickler for certain ideals even at the
cost of other more valuable things, and I don't want to hinder progress on
this matter.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
>> I really, really don't want to put any links in the left-nav proper to
>> destinations that don't carry that menu. I cannot stress this enough. A
>> site visitor should reasonably expect that the menu that helps him or her
>> get around the site also keeps them "on the (branded) site". And as I've
>> mentioned in other discussions, HACKING is far too lengthy a document to be
>> considered "part of the website", in much the same way that "Version Control
>> with Subversion" is.
>
> My hunch is that HACKING probably ought to be split up rather than
> kept as a monolithic big guide.
I've already lost one battle for splitting up HACKING, so you can wage this
one yourself, buddy. :-)
> Oh, BTW, I know you're going to hate me, but ASF policy is that every
> project site has a reasonably-prominent link to:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
Right. Of course it does.
Uncle. :-)
It's becoming more clear to me every moment that my personal design
philosophies don't gel with apparent community needs and inherited policies.
That's fine -- on my list of Major Life Problems, this doesn't even rate a
footnote. If I'm honest with myself (which folks really should be), I was
far more disgusted by the actual content (it's duplication, it's redundancy,
and it's browbeating of casual visitors) of our previous website than about
its navigation menu. So if the worst thing that happens is that we have a
bunch of "offsite" links in our menu, I'm still basically happy.
Edit away, Justin!
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>> Would could physically move the Release Notes section into a new
>> docs/release-notes/index.html, expand that simple list of links a bit to
>> mention (in a non-detailed way) the "big highlights" of each release ("file
>> locking", "merge tracking", "tree conflicts detection", etc.), and link to
>> it in the left-nav in the manner you describe.
>
> I'm happy to take a pass at drafting that.
Here's my attempt:
http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/
(Since that URL was just a directory listing before, I hope it's okay
I just pushed that.)
If this looks good, I can tweak the other references. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@wandisco.com>.
On Wed, 2010-02-03, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Oh, BTW, I know you're going to hate me, but ASF policy is that every
> project site has a reasonably-prominent link to:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
>
> (It can be either "Thanks" or "Sponsors" or something related to that
> phraseology. The left-nav would be perfect for it. *grin* Maybe we
> can get away with just including it in the "disclaimer" text, but I
> think it'd be nice to be a bit more prominent than that.)
A "Thanks" link is now in the nav menu.
The policy that every page on the nav menu should also have the nav menu
is a good one.
The "Thanks" link, and other general and prominent non-nav links such as
a potential "The Book" link, do not have to go in the nav menu. Instead
they could go ...
- in a separate section in the left-hand pane, such as a new section
after the nav menu and before the disclaimer.
- on the main page. The "Thanks" link would not be out of place there
(unless it has to appear on all pages, but that's not how I understood
it).
Or both.
- Julian
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:01 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> A pitfall that I'd like us to avoid is the one that assumes that every piece
> of information of interested must be only a single click away. That might
> have been true in 1994 because of typical network speeds. But that's not
> reality today. The site as it sits today is laid out with what I think is a
> reasonable assumption: that visitors will enter through the home page and
> are visiting with intent. I don't tend to visit a software project's
> website and just poke around to see what I can see. I come looking for
> docs, or for help/support, or for a new release, or for something else. I
> believe others do the same. So it's okay if our homepage and left-nav serve
> only the purpose of triaging site visitors based on what they are looking
> for in general, and then other pages serve up the specifics. These are
> (some of) the design philosophies behind what you see today.
I grok that - but, I also think it's useful (as was my use case
yesterday) when that you *know* there's something on the site that you
can find it with a minimum of fuss. I spent more time searching for
that darn HACKING^Wcommunity guide than it did for me to review the
patch or write the email pointing Daniel at the link. I knew the text
was there, but I simply couldn't find it to save my life - that led to
my frustration...HACKING is simply a part of our community. =P
> I really, really don't want to put any links in the left-nav proper to
> destinations that don't carry that menu. I cannot stress this enough. A
> site visitor should reasonably expect that the menu that helps him or her
> get around the site also keeps them "on the (branded) site". And as I've
> mentioned in other discussions, HACKING is far too lengthy a document to be
> considered "part of the website", in much the same way that "Version Control
> with Subversion" is.
My hunch is that HACKING probably ought to be split up rather than
kept as a monolithic big guide. But, if we treat it separately, isn't
that a reason to expressly link to it? What if we created "another"
sub-site for community with a different template? We could then slice
HACKING up into a proper "mini-site" - and refer to it with a link on
the side-bar off svn.a.o. =P
> That said, I agree that the Documentation page is not the best way to slice
> that information. I totally "get" how the most common class of site visitor
> would assume a set of contents there that aren't. So I like some the
> suggestions here.
>
> Would could physically move the Release Notes section into a new
> docs/release-notes/index.html, expand that simple list of links a bit to
> mention (in a non-detailed way) the "big highlights" of each release ("file
> locking", "merge tracking", "tree conflicts detection", etc.), and link to
> it in the left-nav in the manner you describe.
I'm happy to take a pass at drafting that.
> I'd suggest moving the C API docs, JavaHL doc, and HACKING link to the (new)
> Developer Resources page.
>
> I'd also suggest simply renaming the "Getting Involved" link to just
> "Contributing" (as opposed to adding another separate link for "Contributing
> Code"). As you can tell by the physical name of that page
> (contributing.html), that's the title I really think it should have anyway.
The reason for the name change I suggested was that I think there's a
fuzzy layer between "Community" and "Developer Resources". I don't
think the extra indirection buys us much - the audience is much the
same. In the minimalist world, lists and issue trackers wouldn't be
in the sidebar - so there's a line I think we need to explore here.
> That really only leaves the "Version Control with Subversion" link to deal
> with. I have a semi-obnoxious suggestion here that satisfies my strong
> left-nav opinions: put a thumbnail of the book at the bottom of the
> left-nav menu which links to svnbook.org.
If it is to serve as the main docco link on our site, it should
probably be featured a bit more prominently than at the bottom of the
left-nav menu. I would think it'd be a very popular link. =)
Oh, BTW, I know you're going to hate me, but ASF policy is that every
project site has a reasonably-prominent link to:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
(It can be either "Thanks" or "Sponsors" or something related to that
phraseology. The left-nav would be perfect for it. *grin* Maybe we
can get away with just including it in the "disclaimer" text, but I
think it'd be nice to be a bit more prominent than that.)
*duck* -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
I'm glad this thread is back on track. As I read it, I was thinking
much the same as Hyrum. But I was driving to Miami, rather than
reading mailing lists :-P
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 14:01, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
>...
> That really only leaves the "Version Control with Subversion" link to deal
> with. I have a semi-obnoxious suggestion here that satisfies my strong
> left-nav opinions: put a thumbnail of the book at the bottom of the
> left-nav menu which links to svnbook.org.
Historically, we have incorporated svnbook.org quite heavily. Some of
that may be because it used to be in the tree. Some may be because it
is "all there" on the web. Who knows.
But. There are multiple books about Subversion nowadays, right? Are
any others available for free on the web like svnbook? If so, then it
would probably be best for us to consider how to be even-handed with
linking to these references.
(and if svnbook is the only free/online book, then I like the thumbnail idea!)
Cheers,
-g
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
A pitfall that I'd like us to avoid is the one that assumes that every piece
of information of interested must be only a single click away. That might
have been true in 1994 because of typical network speeds. But that's not
reality today. The site as it sits today is laid out with what I think is a
reasonable assumption: that visitors will enter through the home page and
are visiting with intent. I don't tend to visit a software project's
website and just poke around to see what I can see. I come looking for
docs, or for help/support, or for a new release, or for something else. I
believe others do the same. So it's okay if our homepage and left-nav serve
only the purpose of triaging site visitors based on what they are looking
for in general, and then other pages serve up the specifics. These are
(some of) the design philosophies behind what you see today.
I really, really don't want to put any links in the left-nav proper to
destinations that don't carry that menu. I cannot stress this enough. A
site visitor should reasonably expect that the menu that helps him or her
get around the site also keeps them "on the (branded) site". And as I've
mentioned in other discussions, HACKING is far too lengthy a document to be
considered "part of the website", in much the same way that "Version Control
with Subversion" is.
That said, I agree that the Documentation page is not the best way to slice
that information. I totally "get" how the most common class of site visitor
would assume a set of contents there that aren't. So I like some the
suggestions here.
Would could physically move the Release Notes section into a new
docs/release-notes/index.html, expand that simple list of links a bit to
mention (in a non-detailed way) the "big highlights" of each release ("file
locking", "merge tracking", "tree conflicts detection", etc.), and link to
it in the left-nav in the manner you describe.
I'd suggest moving the C API docs, JavaHL doc, and HACKING link to the (new)
Developer Resources page.
That really only leaves the "Version Control with Subversion" link to deal
with. I have a semi-obnoxious suggestion here that satisfies my strong
left-nav opinions: put a thumbnail of the book at the bottom of the
left-nav menu which links to svnbook.org.
I'd also suggest simply renaming the "Getting Involved" link to just
"Contributing" (as opposed to adding another separate link for "Contributing
Code"). As you can tell by the physical name of that page
(contributing.html), that's the title I really think it should have anyway.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> As I mentioned before, I think we can do some things to make the
> sidebars a little more useful to developers and users too.
>
> Here's a few suggestions - lemme know what you think:
>
> - I think "Documentation" page is a bit misleading. I think it'd be
> best if that just points straight to the user manuals. What about
> "Docs (SVN Book)"? I feel that most people who are looking for
> documentation are going to be actually looking for "how do I run SVN"
> - not "how do I contribute". I *never* would have thought that
> HACKING (or API docs or...) was under there. As for the other content
> sitting on /docs/...
>
> - I would add "Release Notes" under "Getting Subversion" - I know many
> people want to just know what changed and I think giving a quick link
> would be very helpful!
>
> - As for API docs, it's sort of the odd man out. A few thoughts -
> maybe svnbook should point at it too? What do you think?
>
> - I like the term "Community", but wonder if that's slightly
> misleading. What if we made the heading a link to the "Community
> Guide"? Or, "Community (Guide)" with (Guide) being the link?
>
> - I agree that it's important to have "mailing lists" and "issue
> tracker" on the sidebar. But, it's..."Getting Involved"...hmm...what
> if we added a link to the sidebar called "Contributing Code"? I like
> that part of the "Getting Involved" page and would be nice to stress
> that, IMO.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:55 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> Life is like a version control system with no obliterate feature. Change
> comes only via the addition of new revisions. So what can I do to make you
> less unhappy in HEAD?
*grins*
I guess I've not been clear that I do like the current site a lot
better than the previous one. So, thanks for your work there! Let's
see what we can do to make it even better. =)
As I mentioned before, I think we can do some things to make the
sidebars a little more useful to developers and users too.
Here's a few suggestions - lemme know what you think:
- I think "Documentation" page is a bit misleading. I think it'd be
best if that just points straight to the user manuals. What about
"Docs (SVN Book)"? I feel that most people who are looking for
documentation are going to be actually looking for "how do I run SVN"
- not "how do I contribute". I *never* would have thought that
HACKING (or API docs or...) was under there. As for the other content
sitting on /docs/...
- I would add "Release Notes" under "Getting Subversion" - I know many
people want to just know what changed and I think giving a quick link
would be very helpful!
- As for API docs, it's sort of the odd man out. A few thoughts -
maybe svnbook should point at it too? What do you think?
- I like the term "Community", but wonder if that's slightly
misleading. What if we made the heading a link to the "Community
Guide"? Or, "Community (Guide)" with (Guide) being the link?
- I agree that it's important to have "mailing lists" and "issue
tracker" on the sidebar. But, it's..."Getting Involved"...hmm...what
if we added a link to the sidebar called "Contributing Code"? I like
that part of the "Getting Involved" page and would be nice to stress
that, IMO.
WDYT? -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:19 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
>> In my head, it wasn't a reversion -- it was a revision. I honestly thought
>> that you'd be okay with the change, having taken this statement:
>
> I think if you place yourself in my shoes, I think perhaps you'd
> understand why I view it as a "reversion". I made the change, you
> said, "please revert", we start to discuss, and in the middle of the
> discussion, you just revert the change anyway.
>
> At the least, I think it would have been appropriate for you to
> suggest the change and then I could have said "Sure, that's fine - go
> ahead and commit." It wasn't like I wasn't trying to engage in a
> dialogue to see what would be better. Instead, I feel that you just
> did what you wanted to do and didn't really listen to me at all.
>
> Maybe I'm dead wrong, but that's certainly how I feel at the moment. -- justin
Life is like a version control system with no obliterate feature. Change
comes only via the addition of new revisions. So what can I do to make you
less unhappy in HEAD?
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
On Feb 3, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:19 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
>> In my head, it wasn't a reversion -- it was a revision. I honestly thought
>> that you'd be okay with the change, having taken this statement:
>
> I think if you place yourself in my shoes, I think perhaps you'd
> understand why I view it as a "reversion". I made the change, you
> said, "please revert", we start to discuss, and in the middle of the
> discussion, you just revert the change anyway.
>
> At the least, I think it would have been appropriate for you to
> suggest the change and then I could have said "Sure, that's fine - go
> ahead and commit." It wasn't like I wasn't trying to engage in a
> dialogue to see what would be better. Instead, I feel that you just
> did what you wanted to do and didn't really listen to me at all.
>
> Maybe I'm dead wrong, but that's certainly how I feel at the moment. -- justin
I'm really hesitant to jump in here, but I think it's warranted. As a (somewhat) impartial observer, it appears to me that this discussion has gotten a bit out of hand.
I know both of you guys personally, and pretty well. I know you both have the interests of the Subversion community at heart, and are both trying to make things better. I appreciate that, and I'm pretty sure everybody else here does too. I also know you both can have pretty strong views on what is Right, but that neither of you would intentionally give offense especially over something as trivial as a navigation bar.
Let's just accept the fact that stuff happens, both parties have good intentions, and then move on. If we're interested in creating a better community, let's do it, but please just give the other fellow the benefit of the doubt. You both have a lot of respect in the here; don't drag yourselves, and the other guy, through the mud over something that relatively trivial.
Thanks,
-Hyrum
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:19 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> In my head, it wasn't a reversion -- it was a revision. I honestly thought
> that you'd be okay with the change, having taken this statement:
I think if you place yourself in my shoes, I think perhaps you'd
understand why I view it as a "reversion". I made the change, you
said, "please revert", we start to discuss, and in the middle of the
discussion, you just revert the change anyway.
At the least, I think it would have been appropriate for you to
suggest the change and then I could have said "Sure, that's fine - go
ahead and commit." It wasn't like I wasn't trying to engage in a
dialogue to see what would be better. Instead, I feel that you just
did what you wanted to do and didn't really listen to me at all.
Maybe I'm dead wrong, but that's certainly how I feel at the moment. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> This is progress - but I still think a link on the sidebar to
> "Subversion Community Guide" is warranted.
>
> BTW, I am not happy that you reverted my commit. I would hope we
> agree that the world is not set on fire while we continue this
> discussion and try to reach a happy ending. -- justin
In my head, it wasn't a reversion -- it was a revision. I honestly thought
that you'd be okay with the change, having taken this statement:
All I'm asking is that we add something somewhere in a prominent place
that *clearly* points to our document that says: "If you are
contributing to the Subversion project, please read this first".
Nothing more, nothing less.
as, you know, actually true. Since a prominent link was "all" you were
asking for, and since you had previously assumed that "Getting Involved"
would be a place where you would naturally find such a link, it made sense
to me to make that one such "prominent place". I'd also recommend restoring
the "Developer Resources" page as another such prominent place.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think Mike's original point is that he has been trying to engage the
>> list about what links belong all along. There has been some feedback,
>> some on IRC, some here. I thought he was just saying to you that it
>> was not right to come in and add a link without discussing it. If we
>> open that door, the site is soon going to be crap again with
>> everyone's pet link in the nav-bar.
>
> Then, make the website R-T-C for everyone. But, in my mind, it's not
> fair to say that certain full committers can use C-T-R and others
> can't.
>
> In my mind, it is not healthy to create a separate class of *full*
> committers who can commit without review to the website and others who
> can.
First off, we never could have gotten the initial site migrated over
with a review requirement. Especially given that it would have been
unlikely to get review. Look at the lists, it was tried.
Second, I do not believe anyone is suggesting you do not have a right
to update the site now or in the future. The site nav, the overall
look and feel are always going to be "religious" issues. They already
have been. I agree Mike should not have just reverted your commit,
especially if you perceive it that way. But I do not think it was
unreasonable to question the commit or explain what we were trying to
do. Perhaps he should have started the conversation that way, rather
then ask you to revert.
Once the Developer Resources link is restored, I think the right
outcome will have been reached.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> To: Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>
> Cc: C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 12:45:39 PM
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > I think Mike's original point is that he has been trying to engage the
> > list about what links belong all along. There has been some feedback,
> > some on IRC, some here. I thought he was just saying to you that it
> > was not right to come in and add a link without discussing it. If we
> > open that door, the site is soon going to be crap again with
> > everyone's pet link in the nav-bar.
>
> Then, make the website R-T-C for everyone. But, in my mind, it's not
> fair to say that certain full committers can use C-T-R and others
> can't.
>
> In my mind, it is not healthy to create a separate class of *full*
> committers who can commit without review to the website and others who
> can.
>
> My $.02. -- justin
Wah wah wah. You're talking about a nav-bar link, not the entire website.
It's good that people care what goes in there.
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Mike's original point is that he has been trying to engage the
> list about what links belong all along. There has been some feedback,
> some on IRC, some here. I thought he was just saying to you that it
> was not right to come in and add a link without discussing it. If we
> open that door, the site is soon going to be crap again with
> everyone's pet link in the nav-bar.
Then, make the website R-T-C for everyone. But, in my mind, it's not
fair to say that certain full committers can use C-T-R and others
can't.
In my mind, it is not healthy to create a separate class of *full*
committers who can commit without review to the website and others who
can.
My $.02. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> 18) See email from Mark screaming "FOUL!" all over the place
> 19) ...see that my explanations are ignored and the change is reverted anyway...
>
> So, I'm now left wondering why I bothered at all.
>
> This isn't the constructive tone in the community that I remember or am used to.
>
> Maybe I actually did something really really wrong - but I don't see
> how adding a link on the sidebar is something evil and deserves such a
> slap in the face.
First off, Mike already explained that he thought he was heading down
the path of discussion he was having with you. So he did not feel he
was reverting your commit. Perhaps he handled it wrong, but it does
not seem like something to get overly upset about.
Second, in my case, I am screaming FOUL about your not addressing what
we are saying. You keep saying it was hidden and then insinuate we
are making changes without discussing them. We both pointed out that
we thought we had made adequate links and that we were listening to
your suggesting to add more. In the replies, you skipped over those
items and just reiterate your rant that we are trying to hide the
document.
I have also acknowledge your point about Documentation vs. Developer
Documentation and pointed out that was our original intent. As the
site came together, the Developer Documentation page started to seem
redundant so we removed it. Clearly you and others would find HACKING
easier if it were present and so we proposed putting it back, which
would basically mean putting back your link. So where is the problem?
I think Mike's original point is that he has been trying to engage the
list about what links belong all along. There has been some feedback,
some on IRC, some here. I thought he was just saying to you that it
was not right to come in and add a link without discussing it. If we
open that door, the site is soon going to be crap again with
everyone's pet link in the nav-bar.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> BTW, I am not happy that you reverted my commit. I would hope we
> agree that the world is not set on fire while we continue this
> discussion and try to reach a happy ending. -- justin
Pardon for the navel-gazing here, but the more I'm upset that my
commit got reverted without allowing me the courtesy to do so myself.
In my book, that is not healthy community behavior.
I'm trying not to be poisonous here (though, I guess the mere mention
of that is liable to brand me poisonous in your book). Please
consider it from my perspective:
1) I saw an interesting patch from Daniel that I wanted to review
yesterday (fuzzy hunk patch)
2) I couldn't view his patch with GMail because it only offered me to
download it.
3) So, I had to do all sorts of funkiness to view it; but I download
the .patch and review it.
4) I remember that we had a mentioned in the old HACKING about patch
submissions; so I figure it'd be nice to point Daniel at it so that
future submissions are easier to review...
5) I looked in my trunk WC for HACKING...oops...
6) Oh, right...it moved to www/hacking.html...oops...
7) Oh, right...we moved the site out of trunk and to its own directory...
8) Bring up subversion.a.o....oops...hunt for a few minutes...
9) "Where is it?" I can't find it!
10) ...hunt for a few more minutes...
11) ...Oh! There it is, it's now called "community guide" and the
only link I can find is at the bottom of "Getting Involved"...
10) Okay, go to the page and find the appropriate link to send to Daniel.
11) Send review...
12) ...few hours passed...
13) "Gee, perhaps, I'm not the only one who would run into this
problem?" Can I do something constructive for the next poor sap?
14) Look at the site and try to figure out where the best approach may
be. "I'm a full committer. I follow the lists. So, it should be
C-T-R. I'll just go figure out what I think is best and do it and
discuss later if someone has an issue with it." ...add link to
sidebar...
15) ...go to sleep...
16) See email from C-Mike saying "Dude, please revert this change."
17) ...try to explain why I think the change is goodness...
18) See email from Mark screaming "FOUL!" all over the place
19) ...see that my explanations are ignored and the change is reverted anyway...
So, I'm now left wondering why I bothered at all.
This isn't the constructive tone in the community that I remember or am used to.
Maybe I actually did something really really wrong - but I don't see
how adding a link on the sidebar is something evil and deserves such a
slap in the face.
What happened? -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:44 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
>> All I'm asking is that we add something somewhere in a prominent place
>>> that *clearly* points to our document that says: "If you are
>>> contributing to the Subversion project, please read this first".
>>> Nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>> This would be good to add in the Getting Involved page.
>
> Agreed. (And committed.)
This is progress - but I still think a link on the sidebar to
"Subversion Community Guide" is warranted.
BTW, I am not happy that you reverted my commit. I would hope we
agree that the world is not set on fire while we continue this
discussion and try to reach a happy ending. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
> All I'm asking is that we add something somewhere in a prominent place
>> that *clearly* points to our document that says: "If you are
>> contributing to the Subversion project, please read this first".
>> Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> This would be good to add in the Getting Involved page.
Agreed. (And committed.)
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My only objection is to the notion that we have tried to hide it.
Intentionally? Certainly not.
Have we hidden it? Yes, I feel we have.
My $.02. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:57 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> In my mind, the point of being an open-source project is that we are
> trying to encourage contributions. Users are a happy and fortunate
> side-effect. So, when our website specifically hides relevant
> information about contributing where a developer who wants to think
> about contributing won't find it, then our website has failed.
FOUL!
Not only is it not hidden, it is more prominently linked than it has
ever been before.
> When the document's subtitle is: "If you are contributing to the
> Subversion project, please read this first." and we don't link to it
> *anywhere* where any reasonable developer would find it, isn't
> something really really broken? (BTW, no, "Documentation" is not
> where a developer would look if they want to contribute! I read
> "documentation" as "SVN book". Not where I would expect to find
> developer process info!)
Well, we had a Developer Resources link that we got rid of because the
content of the page was shaping up to be nearly identical to the
Documentation page. We could put that back easily and that might be
the answer.
> I applaud going after users - but remember that is a decision that you
> and Mark made on your own and didn't really consult anyone else on.
FOUL!
We brought this up on this list well before doing anything. There was
some commentary, but not much. Most people seemed to want to see the
pages before we comment and there were lots of calls for comments put
out. I do not have any objection to your commenting on improvements
now, BTW, just the notion that we did not consult anyone.
> That choice reflects your personal priorities - great! My priorities
> are developers and potential contributors - and I think that's just as
> valid a focus and at least worth throwing a few bones at. I do not
> believe that one additional link on the sidebar is going to ruin that
> focus.
I'd say we should just put the Developer Resources page back. This
gives us the ability to link in additional developer content in the
future.
> All I'm asking is that we add something somewhere in a prominent place
> that *clearly* points to our document that says: "If you are
> contributing to the Subversion project, please read this first".
> Nothing more, nothing less.
This would be good to add in the Getting Involved page.
> I really don't care where and how we do it, but if we continue to hide
> it, I feel it is going to hurt our community in the long run. --
My only objection is to the notion that we have tried to hide it.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:57 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> Justin, we're trying to aim our content at a wide variety of individuals,
> from those who've only heard of Subversion to those that use it heavily to
> those that are developing it. And yeah, I admit that I've been trying to
> give non-dev site visitors preferential treatment. Maybe that's wrong of
> me. To that end, "Getting Involved" isn't really aimed at you (and
> furthermore, is but a draft at this stage), so I'm not surprised that you
> find it useless. It's really aimed at a few million other Subversion users,
> fashioned after similar pages found on other high-profile software projects'
> websites.
In my mind, the point of being an open-source project is that we are
trying to encourage contributions. Users are a happy and fortunate
side-effect. So, when our website specifically hides relevant
information about contributing where a developer who wants to think
about contributing won't find it, then our website has failed.
When the document's subtitle is: "If you are contributing to the
Subversion project, please read this first." and we don't link to it
*anywhere* where any reasonable developer would find it, isn't
something really really broken? (BTW, no, "Documentation" is not
where a developer would look if they want to contribute! I read
"documentation" as "SVN book". Not where I would expect to find
developer process info!)
I applaud going after users - but remember that is a decision that you
and Mark made on your own and didn't really consult anyone else on.
That choice reflects your personal priorities - great! My priorities
are developers and potential contributors - and I think that's just as
valid a focus and at least worth throwing a few bones at. I do not
believe that one additional link on the sidebar is going to ruin that
focus.
All I'm asking is that we add something somewhere in a prominent place
that *clearly* points to our document that says: "If you are
contributing to the Subversion project, please read this first".
Nothing more, nothing less.
I really don't care where and how we do it, but if we continue to hide
it, I feel it is going to hurt our community in the long run. --
justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I'm sorry, but content in HACKING should be easily found - and when
> you intentionally hide it like we are doing, I think it hurts the
> community. I find the "Getting Involved" page - as written - to be
> completely useless compared to what is in HACKING.
>
> I really dislike how we keep punting around one of the community's
> most important files simply because...
>
> So, no, we need to emphasize that content even more - which means it
> needs to be in the NavBar somewhere. I'm open for ideas how to best
> do it, but the previous state of things was simply not acceptable in
> my opinion. -- justin
Justin, we're trying to aim our content at a wide variety of individuals,
from those who've only heard of Subversion to those that use it heavily to
those that are developing it. And yeah, I admit that I've been trying to
give non-dev site visitors preferential treatment. Maybe that's wrong of
me. To that end, "Getting Involved" isn't really aimed at you (and
furthermore, is but a draft at this stage), so I'm not surprised that you
find it useless. It's really aimed at a few million other Subversion users,
fashioned after similar pages found on other high-profile software projects'
websites.
Not sure what makes you think we're trying to "hide" HACKING. It's one hop
away from the frontpage in what should be an obvious location (a page
devoted to documentation -- release docs, api docs, process docs, etc.). In
fact, we link to it in some fashion from easily half of the site's pages.
Is it just that you think changing the document's name was an attempt to
hide it? If so, we can change it back -- that's far too petty a thing to
get fussy about. (Also, not sure why the lack of a nav-bar link to this
document is suddenly a problem for you, either, since we didn't have such a
link at subversion.tigris.org. But whatever.)
I'm totally for making the site easy to use. But I oppose the kind of adhoc
editing that made the previous site so absolutely ridiculous to navigate and
maintain. Consider the ratio of site visitors who routinely think, "Oh, I
need to look that up in the HACKING doc" to those who don't even know what
that doc is (and don't need to). I'm quite sure it's staggeringly small.
And you've just added a link (in all caps, even) to that highly specialized
document to every page of the site at the cost of every visitor's mental
cycles. That's uncool.
If we fleshed out the "Developer Resources" page (currently commented out of
the left-nav), complete with a prominent link to the HACKING document, would
that provide an easy enough path to this information for you?
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:14 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> jerenkrantz@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: jerenkrantz
>> Date: Wed Feb 3 07:09:43 2010
>> New Revision: 905916
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905916&view=rev
>> Log:
>> * site-nav.html: Put a link to HACKING on the left-side 'cuz I spent way too
>> much time looking for it...and failing.
>
> Dude, please revert this change. One of the problems I'd like to get away
> from with this new website is broken idea that "if it's something I need, it
> must be something everybody needs". Our left-nav isn't a Site Map (though I
> wouldn't mind one bit if it pointed to one). Secondly, I consider it really
> poor form to have links in a site's primary navigation menu lead to
> destinations that lack that menu. But thirdly, I just don't think the world
> should suffer that out-of-place link simply because you apparently couldn't
> manage to take the first hit from a Google search for "Subversion HACKING".
>
> I've committed some changes to the Documentation page that, I hope, will
> hope you and others find the HACKING document more easily in the future.
I'm sorry, but content in HACKING should be easily found - and when
you intentionally hide it like we are doing, I think it hurts the
community. I find the "Getting Involved" page - as written - to be
completely useless compared to what is in HACKING.
I really dislike how we keep punting around one of the community's
most important files simply because...
So, no, we need to emphasize that content even more - which means it
needs to be in the NavBar somewhere. I'm open for ideas how to best
do it, but the previous state of things was simply not acceptable in
my opinion. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
jerenkrantz@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jerenkrantz
> Date: Wed Feb 3 07:09:43 2010
> New Revision: 905916
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905916&view=rev
> Log:
> * site-nav.html: Put a link to HACKING on the left-side 'cuz I spent way too
> much time looking for it...and failing.
Dude, please revert this change. One of the problems I'd like to get away
from with this new website is broken idea that "if it's something I need, it
must be something everybody needs". Our left-nav isn't a Site Map (though I
wouldn't mind one bit if it pointed to one). Secondly, I consider it really
poor form to have links in a site's primary navigation menu lead to
destinations that lack that menu. But thirdly, I just don't think the world
should suffer that out-of-place link simply because you apparently couldn't
manage to take the first hit from a Google search for "Subversion HACKING".
I've committed some changes to the Documentation page that, I hope, will
hope you and others find the HACKING document more easily in the future.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r905916 - /subversion/site/publish/site-nav.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
jerenkrantz@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jerenkrantz
> Date: Wed Feb 3 07:09:43 2010
> New Revision: 905916
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905916&view=rev
> Log:
> * site-nav.html: Put a link to HACKING on the left-side 'cuz I spent way too
> much time looking for it...and failing.
Dude, please revert this change. One of the problems I'd like to get away
from with this new website is broken idea that "if it's something I need, it
must be something everybody needs". Our left-nav isn't a Site Map (though I
wouldn't mind one bit if it pointed to one). Secondly, I consider it really
poor form to have links in a site's primary navigation menu lead to
destinations that lack that menu. But thirdly, I just don't think the world
should suffer that out-of-place link simply because you apparently couldn't
manage to take the first hit from a Google search for "Subversion HACKING".
I've committed some changes to the Documentation page that, I hope, will
hope you and others find the HACKING document more easily in the future.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand