On 12.09.2019 05:00, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:09 AM Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org > <mailto:julianf...@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
