Re: More developer.gnome.org cleanup

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 14:54 -0400, A. Walton wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 12:12 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> >> Time for more developer.gnome.org cleanup. We need to move more stuff to
> >> library.gnome.org or to the wiki or accept that it's old and useless.
> >> Any volunteers?
> >>
> >> The Nautilus Internals document
> >> http://developer.gnome.org/doc/whitepapers/nautilus/nautilus-internals.html
> >> needs to be changed to DocBook from sxw (OpenOffice).
> >> http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/nautilus/trunk/docs/nautilus-internals.sxw?view=log
> >> Then it can be put on library.gnome.org automatically whenever Nautilus
> >> tarballs are released.
> >
> > Are there Nautilus developers that could be bugged about this?
> > Maintainers are generally responsible for their own internal
> > architecture documentation.
> >
> 
> We could be bugged about it, but as it stands there's little in that
> document that is of relevance to Nautilus' current infrastructure. It
> speaks mostly of Corba and Bonobo components, GnomeVFS and
> libbackground and other non-existent things. It needs a complete
> rewrite for relevance past Nautilus 2.22.

That simple then. The .sxw file can stay in the nautilus module and we
can just take it off the website because it's probably doing more harm
than good. I suggest that you put a warning in the .sxw file in the
Nautilus module. Thanks.

> >> This Standards page is just a list of links. I guess it should be added
> >> to the "Overview of the GNOME Platform" if there is nothing similar in
> >> that already.
> >> http://developer.gnome.org/doc/standards/
> >
> > There is one that's actually hosted on dgo: "GNOME Window
> > Manager Compliance".  Is this document worth keeping?  If
> > so, I suppose we should put it in gnome-devel-docs.
> >
> > As for the rest, we can add whatever links make sense to
> > the Platform Overview.  I just need to know which links
> > we really think are worthwhile.
> >
> > CORBA - relevant to the "Bonobo and CORBA" section of
> > the Overview, although deprecated.

Yeah, let's not mention it.

> > DOM - not really relevant desktop-wide, although if ever
> > we have a blessed HTML component, we'd want to talk about
> > that in the Overview, and then the link is relevant.

Yeah, doesn't seem relevant.

> > Window Manager Hints - broken link.
> >
> > Xdnd - already in the Overview.
> >
> > XML - should be added in the XML section.
> >
> > X Window System - not really a link to a standard per se.
> > The Overview doesn't really mention X much right now.
> >
> >
> >> I think all 3 optimisation documents
> >> http://developer.gnome.org/doc/guides/optimisation/
> >> should be put in one DocBook document. Is there a suitable existing
> >> DocBook document that we can just add a chapter to?
> >> Here is the source HTML:
> >> http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/web-devel-2/trunk/content/doc/guides/optimisation/
> >
> > Already sort of done:
> >
> > http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/gnome-devel-docs/trunk/optimization-guide/
> >
> > It's not included in the build yet, because somebody needs
> > to clean it up and make sure it functions well as a single
> > document.

If you add it to the build then we can put it on library.gnome.org and
get more feedback.

> >> Are these Programming Guidelines worth saving? Here is the source HTML:
> >> http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/web-devel-2/trunk/content/doc/guides/programming-guidelines/
> >
> > It's a very old document.  I would want somebody to give it
> > a hefty review and edit before we put it in gnome-devel-docs.
> > All the same, it's a useful sort of document to have.

I'd rather do that editing _after_ it's become DocBook, rather than
editing HTML. So can't we add it as Docbook to gnome-devel-docs svn at
least?

> >> I feel that some of these Developer Tools things should go in the wiki
> >> where they are more likely to be kept up to date:
> >> http://developer.gnome.org/tools/
> >
> > I think there's value in having a GNOME Developer Site.  It
> > wouldn't contain much content itself, but an attractive and
> > useful site could go a long way in making a good impression
> > on potential new developers and ISDs.
> >
> > Personally, I'd like to see the developer site be a sort of
> > site branding, independent of machine names.  So bugzilla,
> > while not accessed through developer.gnome.org, would appear
> > as part of the developer site.  Then developer.gnome.org
> > would just be a single access point for all the developer
> > subsites.

Yes, I'm fine with having a simple page or two at developer.gnome.org
that just has lots of links to library.gnome.org and live.gnome.org
stuff. I think we can get there once we have everything on
library.gnome.org and live.gnome.org.

-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com