On 12.09.2019 05:00, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:09 AM Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_apache.org
> <mailto:julianfoad_at_apache.org>> wrote:
> > Nathan Hartman wrote in thread "Change to Subversion PMC rule for
> > approving backports":
> > > Julian Foad wrote:
> > >> I strongly urge that we simplify any and all of our documentation
> at any
> > >> opportunity. Nearly all of it is much too long. It would be much
> better
> > >> to state the facts in a few bullet points, and move the discussion of
> > >> rationale and history to a dedicated subsection so readers just
> wanting
> > >> the facts can easily skip that part.
> > >
> > > Which document would you consider most important to fix the soonest?
> >
> > In line with current transition to emphasise stabilization and
> > availability, I suppose these user-facing docs should take priority:
> >
> > * finding/downloading/installing svn from *binaries*:
> > - http://subversion.apache.org/packages
> >
> > * how to contact us; reduce/combine some of these?
> > - http://subversion.apache.org/reporting-issues
> > - http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/issues
> > - http://subversion.apache.org/mailing-lists
> > - http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/mailing-lists
> > - http://subversion.apache.org/faq#more-information
> > - http://subversion.apache.org/security/
> >
> > * and the home page should make those things extremely easy to find:
> > - http://subversion.apache.org/
> >
> > If you or anyone wants to help, I think any of those would be an
> > excellent place to do so.
> >
> > The various contact info is particularly scattered, and pointers often
> > state "users@" email with no hint of the IRC/Matrix alternative. Could
> > we make a good "contact us" landing page which directs users
> > appropriately to all forms of contact?
>
> I've been studying the site and there is a site-ng branch created
> 2015. I remember a discussion about it around that time but I can't
> find it in the archives now.
>
> Since there are no commits on site-ng beyond branch creation / readme,
> would it be agreeable if I catch it up to the present and use it?
site-ng was a misguided attempt at changing how our site implementation
works (from server-side includes to generated static pages). If we ever
do that overhaul, we'll probably use the new templating automation that
Infra is working on.
I'd prefer to *delete* the site-ng branch. The staging branch is there
for preparing content changes.
-- Brane
Received on 2019-09-12 09:12:24 CEST