Ross Gardler wrote:
(about this comment
FS> <!-- Note: No matter what you configure here, Forrest will always try to
load
FS> index.html when you request http://yourHost/
FS> -->>
)
RG> I'm -1 on the current comment as it gives the impression that it *can't*
RG> be changed. This is bad. If someone needs to change it and they read
RG> that comment then they will not bother to search the docs/ask on the
RG> mailing lists.
RG> In my opinion it's better to have something undocumented (and therefore
RG> prompt questions) than to have it incorrectly documented.
I disagree here. It might have been ok to just leave it before we knew
about the inconsistencies it will create if you don't use index.html.
But knowing that and only having learned about this by accident feels
a bit like leaving a big hole in the street uncovered and smashing the
streetlight.
Taking the comment out, people will just fall into the trap and perhaps
not even know until the put their site on a server.
I feel that inquisitive minds will stumple about the comment and come
back asking for the reasons behind this or ways around this anyway.
They'll benefit but won't be stopped. But those who want to use
Forrest without knowing the details will get a clear message.
In fact, thinking about it, I'd probably extend that comment to tell
you that you have to have an index.html in the root for things to work
properly.
Apart from that:
Putting sufficient info to explain the whole situation into that
comment will take perhaps 20 lines. That is a bit much for my taste.
If it is not, I'll happily add that.
Or I could either add a line to refer people to this thread or write
up a short faq that sums up the facts about changing index.html and
refer to that.
wdyt
--
Ferdinand Soethe
