[Vit-discuss] lang/doc splitting headache
james.britt at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 10:36:53 EST 2005
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:09:24 -0300, Michel Martens <blaumag at gmail.com> wrote:
> It serves better to have just one voice giving you the welcome message
> and explaining what Ruby is and what it does (intro and reference),
> and not an overwhelming choir of voices, each telling its own version.
> Once you know what it is, you can pick the tutorial, manual or user
> guide you want.
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:35:16 -0800 (PST), David A. Black
> <dblack at wobblini.net> wrote:
> > HI --
> > ...
> > How does that better serve the visitor than having, say, a list of
> > tutorials, including a direct link to the online Pickaxe? The
> > architecture of any given site does not have to be determined or
> > constrained by any other site -- meaning, in this case, that if a
> > direct link to something seems desireable for visitors to Ruby's
> > homepage, then there should be such a link, not just a straight line
> > to some other page where there is such a link.
> > I'm actually a little surprised that this -- the fundamental
> > constructive principle of the Web, not to mention Gopher -- is such a
> > sticking point.
I agree with David here; I, too, am puzzled by the insistence on such
a heavy-handed approach to hosting.
But I've pretty much said all I can on that, and I really don't want
to see this become a major distraction.
Is it unrealistic or troublesome to move on with the redesign of
ruby-lang, with the consensual illusion that everything will be hosted
on ruby-lang.org, and then later on, after seeing just what that
amounts to, argue the pros and cons based on user expectations, server
load, content maintenance, bureaucratic impedance, and so on?
We can just *pretend* all will be hosted on ruby-lang, just so some
actual progress can be made.
More information about the vit-discuss