hello, while the wiki has its entry in the fossil menu and is easy to find the in-project documentation is not so obvious.
As a fossil user I have to read the manual to find the docs at all so I would know. The manual is even quite well explained and almost exhaustive. However, if I were to direct people to the in-project docs who are not seasoned fossil users themselves I can envision quite a few problems. Firstly, fossil has undocumented index file support, and the index file name is hardcoded in the fossil source. Interestingly, this index file is index.html (only). Having checked index.wiki or README or readme.txt into the repository is no use. You will have to use an index.html with redirect to have one of those files as index. Second, the doc/ hierarchy behaves very odd compared to what users would expect after visiting sites served by other we servers. The url http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc contains: No such document: index.wiki This is very misleading. I have no idea where this comes from as 1) there is no possibility that any files reside on this URL 2) index.wiki is not index file of anything I guess if this page was to contain useful content it could redirect to tip or other configurable branch or just list branches (and include ckout in the list when an open repository is served). The url http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk contains: No such document: index.html This is more to the point since it complains about non-existence of the undocumented index file. However, if the file did exist and was served through this url it would necessarily have broken links. Or the links would be broken when served through http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/ or http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/index.html because the latter urls are down one directory in the url hierarchy. Redirection to single URL is required for such file to work. The url http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/www again complains about the missing index file. In the current fossil release it would complain that www does not exist, and only allow http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/www/ I also notice that while the CSS is customizable the HTML templates are not. While this is not much of a problem for many projects in some cases you would want to reorganize the page layout and/or add additional elements. At the very least adding some more divs off which to hang the style rules would be useful. eg. I was considering to add a background to the page header but noticed that by default the body has 1ex margin which prevents the header background from reaching the sides of the page. Removing this margin starts a cascade of changes required to return to remotely sane formatting while stylistic-only header and content div which implements the margin and possibly background in place of the body element would work wonderfully. Is there any chance that the in-repo doc serving is polished at least to the point that it's usable by unsuspecting people just browsing the web without realizing this is in fact a fossil repository. As it is the fossil served pages need to be used very carefully because they are quite fragile compared to what you would expect from, say, static directory structure served off apache. I am not opposed to writing patches, and all these issues are quite trivial but I am also aware that some patches are rotting in the fossil tickets for years so I guess patches are not what gives you fixed fossil. I can apply them locally but it does not help if I want other people to be able to mirror my repo or use chiselapp, or whatever. And I need to rebuild for every architecture myself since whatever official packages exist will never get my local patches. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
