Update of bug #2168 (project savane):
Status: Need Info => Wont Fix
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #11:
> Whatever you decide, please, consider that missing that link is in this
case
> way more inconvenient than having a wrong link.
This is quite unusual. A missing link can easily be added by other means
(webpage, project description, news item, whatever). An erroneous link stays
in the way, lead people to think what they should not (not sure at all that
people may get the fact that "content doesn't match" if they dont know
exactly what is the content.
Regarding what I said in comment #2, now projects like Livret du libre can
benefit of the viewcvs link even if they use an exotic URL for the website. I
configure apache on home.gna.org, that serves homepages at Gna!, to redirect
home.gna.org/thisproject to its domain transparently. So people letting the
default setup for their project will get everything right, the URL and the
viewcvs link (even if the URL shown on the interface is not the final URL,
which does not truly matter)
I'm a bit loss in this dense debate, I'm not sure what you'd like, actually.
I'm personally happy with the current situation and find no insatisfactory
case, apart extremely highly specific (such as www.gnu.org being in
/software/). I think most of the potential should be fixed in the homepage
server side.
The Savane interface is supposed to put things in harmony. If on the homepage
server level there is no harmony, things should be put on harmony there,
shouldn't they?
So maybe I missed something, but apart from the www.gnu.org <-> /software/
case, I'm sure to understand what we would gain but I know what we would
loose (cohesion, with broken links that does not even appear to be broken).
Indeed, we could make that a project configuration option. But there are
already so many options, do we really need to add one more, considering that
everything we could automate have great chance to be more accurate?
When you propose
> The erroneous information could be removed by allowing people to
desactivate
> the viewcvs link.
isn't it a bit to weird to provide an option to remove unaccurate information
we put because we made erroneous assumptions in first place. How many users
will spend time to find out how to fix the inconsistency of our software? Not
so many I guess.
While, in fact, if the information is missing for X reason, how hard is it
for the project admin to provide that information?
So, summary:
- how often such problem can occur?
- can we really assume that it is best to mislead users with bogus
information while missing information would just lead them to find the info
by other means?
For the first question, I would say: very rarely.
For the second question, I would have a hard time to be convinced by such
assumption.
So in the meantime, I close the item but it is still possible to reopen it in
necessary.
I'd be glad to provide any info if you'd like to set up redirections like at
home.gna.org to fix such issues (but I guess it would be hard to change some
directory structure for www.gnu.org because IICRW, any tiny change is subject
to random anger by some people that does not like changes even when proven
very useful)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=2168>
_______________________________________________
Message posté via/par Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Savane-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
