[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: broken links

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:03:52AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > Couldn't they be un-linked, or lead to placeholder files, rather than
> > 404s till the actual documents land there?
>  Please see the top of the page:
> ,------------------------------> quote <------------------------------
> | This is a *work-in-progress version* of the Release Notes for Debian
> | GNU/Linux 6.0, codename squeeze, which isn't released yet. The
> | information presented here might be inaccurate and outdated and is
> | most likely incomplete.
> `------------------------------> quote <------------------------------
>  That part is there on intention. The page is meant as a staging area,
> and the empty table below also gives a hint that it isn't there yet.
> I really don't see the big deal with this. Having empty pages as place
> holders doesn't gain much IMHO and depending on the way of deployment
> could rather cause more troubles in the end than good.

I saw that, thank you. Personally, I'd still prefer no links, rather
than broken links, but then, that's a personal choice, and I'll let
the people who maintain the website make their decisions, since they
know what works best for them.

Thank you for the clarification.

*** PUBLIC flooding detected from erikyyy
<lewnie> THAT's an erik, pholx.... ;)
		-- Seen on #LinuxGER

Reply to: