Re: GTK+ Web site overhaul

[Tim Janik <timj imendio com>]

hey Martyn,

what you say overall sounds good to me, so please get started on your ideas.
i'll just comment on the sections where i see/find a slightly different angle.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Martyn Russell wrote:

> > > ÿÿ Can we remove these unused or unlinked (no href) top level .html
> > > files?
> > >     ÿÿ setuid.html
> > >     ÿÿ gtk_news.html
> > >     ÿÿ gtk_news_top_10.html
> > >     ÿÿ gtk_app_categories.html
> > >     ÿÿ gtk_app_index.html
> > >     ÿÿ announce.html
> > >     ÿÿ books.html
> > >     ÿÿ gtk+-1.2-NEWS.html
> > >     ÿÿ glib-1.2-NEWS.html
> > >     ÿÿ translations.html
> >
> > i'd guess so, unless someone actually objects...
> > have you used google to search for any external references to these
> > links that indicate they could be worth keeping?
> > e.g. see:
> >   http://www.google.de/search?as_lq=www.gtk.org%2Fsetuid.html
> >
> > that is, the setuid page *definitely* has to be kept. that is an ever
> > recurring question and documents an important design decision.
>
> No, I know that changing the site is likely to break some external
> links, but unless they are absolutely necessary I think that is OK to
> do, you have to at some point. For those that need to be kept we can
> always tidy up the module and provide a link to the new location so
> older locations still work.
>
> The setuid.html file looks like it should be in the FAQ to be honest. I
> would be inclined to put it there, create a link (i.e.
> gtk.org/setuid.html --> <some new place in the FAQ>).
>
> We could also update the source so it no longer points to the old
> location and phase the link out over time.

putting/having this in the FAQ sounds good to me. however i think we should
still maintain gtk.org/setuid.html as entrance link because it has shipped
with Gtk+ for so long and also been referenced in quite some mailing list
threads. also we may or may not want to put extra info there that goes
beyond or besides the explanation in the FAQ.

> > > ÿÿ Can we remove these unused scripts:
> > >     ÿÿ freshmeat_update.sh
> >
> > is it revivable? otherwise removing should be fine...
>
> Technically anything is if it is in Subversion. We should just remove it
> in my opinion.

yes, i didn't mean to ask if it's history is lost.
with "revivable" i meant: does it make any sense to look into updating
the script and starting to utilize it for automated freshmeat announcement
submissions upon future Gtk+ releases? (that prolly involves Matthias to
some extend, because he currently throws out GLib/Gtk+ releases.)

> Regards,
> Martyn

---
ciaoTJ