https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70043
Philippe Cloutier <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED Summary|Rewrite Guide: Disambiguate |Rewrite Guide confusing |uses of URI vs URL vs |about URI (DPI|discardpath) |URL-path across all docs. | --- Comment #7 from Philippe Cloutier <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Rich Bowen from comment #3) > As the person who will surely be the one that works on this ticket, having a > title that actually explains to me what I expect to be working on makes it > much more likely that I will actually work on it. Your concern is legitimate, and there are ITS engines like Azure DevOps which allow to create tasks for issues, as the “Track work with different work item types” section there shows: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/boards/work-items/about-work-items?view=azure-devops&tabs=basic-process Unfortunately, although this practice is very common in the industry, it is much less so in CBPP. Most CBPP ITSs use basic engines like Bugzilla, which does not support tasks. [MNG-5896] is more or less an example, although the tickets do not use the Task type. [INFRA-27707] uses the Task type, although the example is not very convincing. But this would be possible on ASF Jira (YouTrack is another engine which models this well). > "Confusing", like "Incoherent", does not communicate to me the intent of the > ticket. If tickets have an intent, I would argue their title’s (main) function is to communicate their issue, not their intent. You could rightly say that "confusing" is not so clear, but then mod_rewrite is itself unclear, so describing an issue in its documentation in a single sentence is not always easy. Even in the Description, I could not say precisely what the problem is, since I didn't really understand what the section describes. The Description should be read to see how the problem can be addressed. > But, whatever. I give up. If I may abuse “my” ticket, I sense some discouragement/resignation in that latest comment, as well as in some of your other messages elsewhere. I don't disagree with your assessment that you were most likely to contribute to a solution. And I don't disagree that there are lots of documentation issues. But that is also the case in many other projects (at the ASF and elsewhere). I very much hope you will get help, or even not need to intervene at all in future fixes. There may be very few people contributing to documentation today, but that does not mean it has to stay this way. As I wrote in https://lists.apache.org/thread/94gh4txmxnt8y4bknz9p8p4ygnot08sq, httpd documentation may not have an abundance of very low-hanging fruits, but the best advice I can offer is the same I have for the vast majority of projects I advise: invest in foundations first. Even if that takes more time first, that will lead earlier to a quality product which lasts longer. Remember Nupedia’s faith, and don’t neglect infrastructure/tools/processes and recruitment/training. To quote Dirk-Willem van Gulik: > [The ASF is about] finding, first and foremost, a very welcoming community, > and a code base only second > That being said, I understand httpd is itself a highly foundational component, so there was no choice earlier. > Have a lovely weekend. Thank you, I hope yours was as good. Thank you very much for the fixes, that is way clearer. I now get a sense of what this is saying and filed a followup in ticket #70052. Also, I understand from your retitling and commit message that you confuse URIs and URI references. A URL-path can be an URI reference, but it is never a URI. Moreover, a URL-path never includes a query string. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
