Hi again! :) * Jon Dowland <[email protected]> [2010-01-12 12:38:14 CET]: > * Frank Lin PIAT <[email protected]> [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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
