Hi *, On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:50:50PM +0200, Kai Backman wrote: > Hi everyone, > > My current focus is to lower the barrier of entry for new C++ > developers who want to hack on the codebase. The first thing a > potential developer will look for is how to check out the source code > from the repository. I've summarized the webpages you need to go > through to reach source access on some popular FOSS projects. The > number after the URL is the number of links on that page. > > OpenOffice.org > 1 http://www.openoffice.org/ 72
That number is not really comparable to the other pages. The main-page surely has more links (since it has links to the various news-pages/In the Media-stuff. "Real" URLs are: The Top-Navigation bar, the three buttons. The rest is clearly less important and should not confuse the user. When you want to contribute, then there are basically two ways to think: A) I want to contribute, thus I follow the contributing link as outlined by you or B) I want to download the source 2) http://download.openoffice.org/2.0.3/index.html 3) http://download.openoffice.org/2.0.3/source.html 4) http://openoffice.bouncer.osuosl.org/?product=OpenOffice.org&os=src&lang=en&version=2.0.3 (= the download-URL) or when you use the download-Button in the top-navbar instead of the green one that looks more like a "for end-users download" anyway: 2) http://download.openoffice.org/index.html 3) http://download.openoffice.org/2.0.3/source.html 4) http://openoffice.bouncer.osuosl.org/?product=OpenOffice.org&os=src&lang=en&version=2.0.3 If you compare the way it takes to download the source, then IMHO B) is the better way. > Observations: > - Our checkout page is very deep within the site. I was tempted to add > a 7th chain as the enticing "Build, fix, enhance" link on > development.oo.org actually links to the same page. I don't agree. I agree that the development pages are not very clear, but that's another story. you need three clicks and you got your download. In my opintion this is rather good. > - The number of links on development.oo.org is quite high, especially > considering most of them are plain text links. It's difficult to find > the proper path even if you know what to look for. If fully agree. > - Accessing the Linux kernel from kernel.org is truly 1-Click. A major > part of the links on that page are for source archives. But theres absolutely no other info. And surely this is not comparable. On OOo you got that fat, green download-button and the prominent download-link at the top. > - Maybe we can summarize that the number of C/C++ developers is > inversely related to the ease of finding the source code .. :-) See above. Seems like developers like to go the "hard way"... > So what are your suggestions? How could we better funnel potential > hackers to our CVS checkout page and the build page? What are your > thoughts on this? Decide - where is cvs instructions on kernel.org? (not that they are using cvs, but anyway...) - There is a link to a page that apparently lists some instructions on how to access it using git, but it is inaccessible. > Oh, and incidentally, when you finally find our repository checkout > instructions, they aren't actually up to date .. Well - newbies shouldn't start with CVS but get the source-tarball instead. But if you want to download using cvs, then click on either download-link from the frontpage and there to source-download: http://download.openoffice.org/2.0.3/source.html That page has a ling to the Wiki: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page#Getting_started_with_OOo_development Which in turn has a prominent "Get it" that links to http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Getting_It That has all the necessary stuff. But that demonstrates a problem with newbies and cws: You have to explain milestones.... ciao Christian -- NP: Pantera - The Great Southern Trendkill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
