Re: [Debian Wiki] Update of "Maintainers" by FranklinPiat
Hi again! :)
* Jon Dowland <jon+debian-www@alcopop.org> [2010-01-12 12:38:14 CET]:
> * Frank Lin PIAT <fpiat@klabs.be> [2010-01-08 01:18:15 CET]:
> > That page had recently been re-factored. I felt the it
> > would be sensible to move it the the glossary... But I
> > didn't know that it was linked from www.d.o. I have now
> > restored the page.
>
> I have no problem with the page once known as "Maintainers"
> being moved to a new canonical location if that location
> makes more sense: my objection is the previously functional
> URI "Maintainers" no longer pointing at any content. Content
> which redirects users to either a glossary page, or wherever
> the content of the "Maintainers" page goes, or both, is
> fine. (this seems to be the current situation)
Sure, breaking URLs isn't a good thing. :)
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 09:18:21AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs
> wrote:
> > Actually, the four pages on www.d.o that link to the wiki
> > actually should link to the DebianMaintainer page and not
> > the Maintainers page.
>
> I agree, if a more appropriate canonical location has been
> chosen, then all links under project control should be
> updated to reflect that.
I think you are getting me wrong here. They were wrong right from the
start.
> > The Maintainers page always has been very terse and not
> > really helpful - I don't really see the need to keep it
> > around?
>
> Whilst I'm sorry you dislike it, as both myself and Anibal
> (but mostly Anibal) have put a lot of effort into it,
Please check again. What I can see from the history of the two pages
you and Anibal have put a lot of effort into the DebianMaintainer page,
*not* the Maintainers page!
This has nothing to do with dislike, and especially nothing to do with
belittling your and Anibal's effort, I rather think you are confused
yourself about the two pages, as their revision history speaks a
completely different story. ;)
The Maintainers page was always throughout its history extremely terse
and short, DebianMaintainer the page that always was livid (and edited
by you and Anibal). I actually was really puzzled to find in both your
and Anibal's user page a link to Maintainers where there wasn't a single
edit of yours on that page. :)
> and for a time at least it was the most comprehensive source of info
> on maintainers (combining infos from the announcement, the package
> source, the GR texts in one place).
And it still looks like this to me. With respect to the
DebianMaintainer page that you and Anibal edited, *not* with the
Maintainers page you complained about removal. :)
> However, the quality of the content and any constructive criticism of
> it is really a side-issue: please feel free to bring it up in a new
> thread.
I don't see the need to bring up any issues with the DebianMaintainer
page, and I am quite confident that you are just puzzling the two pages.
Why it is so is out of my reach.
So long!
Rhonda
Reply to: