Re: Wiki vs homepage

2010-07-23 Thread Philippe Monnet
Ok I would really like to get the promo site going so that we have something up and running before Why Day (Aug 19th per http://whyday.org/). I propose the following: 1. I can go ahead and buy the ruby-camping.com domain - should someone also buy the .org equivalent? I think the promo site

Re: Wiki vs homepage

2010-07-23 Thread Steve Klabnik
I don't know if it's available or not, but why not campingrb.com rather than ruby-camping.com? Many of the other small web frameworks follow this url scheme (sinatrarb and padrinorb). Or maybe not. I just think it's an interesting url for Ruby projects.

Re: Wiki vs homepage

2010-07-23 Thread Dave Everitt
Hi Steve - I really like that idea. Of course, someone (us) is going to have to actually purchase the domain at some point :-) - Dave E I don't know if it's available or not, but why not campingrb.com rather than ruby-camping.com? Many of the other small web frameworks follow this url

Re: using Tilt requires full controller reference

2010-07-23 Thread David Susco
Hey Magnus, I patched the files and it's still the same thing. Here's the backtrace, let me know if you want browser dump as well. 127.0.0.1 - - [23/Jul/2010 11:48:39] GET /Home HTTP/1.1 500 95353 0.3607 ArgumentError: Anonymous modules have no name to be referenced by

Re: Wiki vs homepage

2010-07-23 Thread Philippe Monnet
My preference would be to have Ruby explicitly mentioned in the name and a clear easy-to-read url. This makes it a bit more SEO friendly too which is important for a promo site. IMHO suffixing with rb is not very visually attractive. On 7/23/2010 9:39 AM, Steve Klabnik wrote: I don't know if

Re: Wiki vs homepage

2010-07-23 Thread Dave Everitt
Anyone know who did this: http://camping.tumblr.com/ ? Dave E Jenna: I suggest a tumblr, because it doesn't cost anything, can have group committers, all the features we need, and it too is connected to the rich heritage of _why :) ___

Re: Wiki vs homepage

2010-07-23 Thread Dave Everitt
May not be attractive, but if it's already a ruby-related meme, worth considering - Dave E On 23 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Philippe Monnet wrote: My preference would be to have Ruby explicitly mentioned in the name and a clear easy-to-read url. This makes it a bit more SEO friendly too which is

Re: using Tilt requires full controller reference

2010-07-23 Thread Magnus Holm
Wait, forget about that Tilt patch. Try this instead: module App include X end // Magnus Holm On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 18:01, David Susco dsu...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Magnus, I patched the files and it's still the same thing. Here's the backtrace, let me know if you want browser dump

Re: using Tilt requires full controller reference

2010-07-23 Thread David Susco
lol, at first I thought you were messing with me. X is the apps Controllers module, correct? Will I always have to do this when using Tilt? Or only until this patch makes it into a gem? Dave On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Magnus Holm judo...@gmail.com wrote: Wait, forget about that Tilt

Re: using Tilt requires full controller reference

2010-07-23 Thread Magnus Holm
You'll have to agree that include X sounds so much better than include Controllers? :-) Could you test one more thing for me? Without a Tilt patch, can you add `require 'camping/templates'` right after `require 'camping'` and check if it still works? Here you go: `gem install camping --source