On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_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
> 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
>>> 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.
Received on 2010-02-03 16:56:57 CET