Le 23/01/2012 00:17, Peter Bittner a écrit : > Howdy, > > I've pulled from the pyjs.org git repository two hours ago and did > some modifications to two files in pyjs_site/public/: contents.txt, > index.html > > WARNING: Some files (e.g. ./FAQ.html) seem to exist on the webserver, > but are gone from the repository! In the case of the FAQ I've replaced > links referring to /FAQ.html by /faq/answers/. > BTW, what is the preferred way for internal links? Isn't<a > href="#FAQ">... sufficient? Why is a schema such as<a > href="./FAQ.html#FAQ">... used all over the site? > > I've fixed dangling links in index.html and aligned the navigation > (available to spiders and when JavaScript is off) with the > Pyjamas/JavaScript powered website version. (SEO optimisation, whew!) > - Since I have no write access to neither the gitolite nor the SF > repo: @Pascal, shall I send you a .patch file? By e-mail? Open an > issue on the issue tracker? *nirg* Thanks for the fixes, but beware, FAQ and other files are not missing, they're just in a subdirectory, and get copied to the root of the site when "building" it (cf shell scripts). I'm currently tool-less due to workstation in repair, you should indeed rather get commit access to the SF repo (forget pyjs.org one for now).
Regards, Pascal >>> However I didn't dig further the #607 patches, they were reported as >>> "format detection failed" for me, and I have no experience in working >>> with partially-broken patches (since sources have changed since then...) > I can help with that too, I'll apply the changes again, manually. It's > one defunct link (in documentation.html), and a lot of formatting > corrections to get the HTML somewhat valid (in features.html, > about.html). Pascal, can you give me a 'green light' for those files, > so we don't need to worry about resolving conflicts later? > >>> I've pushed the current state on sourceforge/website_updated, since I >>> don't understand what's going on with the different repos >>> (sourceforge/master hasn't moved, but pyjs.org/master has, whereas it's >>> supposed to be overridden by sourceforge's ?) >> consider [email protected] to be a one-way updated "thing" for now. > @Luke, the repo thing needs clarification: Where shall we commit/push > the changes to? If SF, can you give me write access? (My SF username > is bittner, I'd submit an ssh public key to my SF account in that > case.) > > Peter
