Re: To change or not to changing threads ( Re: Comment on index.html (Re: Where to change comments to configuration files))
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Ferdinand Soethe wrote: ... Believe me, as I have already suffered consequences from my bad habit of sending quick mails ;-) Absolutely, we have all been there (and I still go there unfortunately). One of my blog entries describes how I *try* and manage the horrible flourish of email that Open Source often brings. http://www.jroller.com/page/rgardler/20050328#ten_tips_for_increasing_your (its more than 10 now - if you have any favourite tips I'd love to hear them) Ross
Re: To change or not to changing threads ( Re: Comment on index.html (Re: Where to change comments to configuration files))
Ferdinand Soethe wrote: ... My problem is not different threads but the temptation of sending instant replies. I just needed to take the time, read all new stuff and then respond to avoid this. Instant replies also tend to lower the signal2noise ratio, can create tensions in case of important discussions, make it easy to mistakenly send a private letter to public, and make mails less polished and difficult to understand. As a general case, waiting some time will always help, and also ease the personal tension. Updating mail once a day or at most hourly also helps. Believe me, as I have already suffered consequences from my bad habit of sending quick mails ;-) -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
To change or not to changing threads ( Re: Comment on index.html (Re: Where to change comments to configuration files))
In 'Re: Comment on index.html (Re: Where to change comments to configuration files)' Ross Gardler wrote: FS> Sorry, I shouldn't respond to messages one by one. That way I missed FS> your solution in 'Re: Inkonsistency in implementation of default file FS> and site.xml and what to do about it' when I wrote my reply. RG> One of the reasons for keeping everything in one thread. This particular RG> issue spanned three different threads because of subject changes. It's RG> sometimes very difficult to know when to change the subject. I always RG> try not too unless I have totally changed the direction the thread is RG> taking. I've started to move discussions to a new thread as soon as the topic changes significantly. The main reason being that in searching the archives I have often come across lng threads that touched the subject I was looking for once and then discussed something else for the next 100 messages. And since you can't be sure you have to read carefully through all of them. I also like the fact that I can clearly see that a threat is moving on to something else (perhaps something I'm not interested in) so that I don't need to follow this new thread. At least that's the theorie. My problem is not different threads but the temptation of sending instant replies. I just needed to take the time, read all new stuff and then respond to avoid this. -- Ferdinand Soethe
Re: Comment on index.html (Re: Where to change comments to configuration files)
Ferdinand Soethe wrote: Ross Gardler wrote: RG> But that simply is not correct. It *is* configurable as I have written RG> on a number of occasions now. Sorry, I shouldn't respond to messages one by one. That way I missed your solution in 'Re: Inkonsistency in implementation of default file and site.xml and what to do about it' when I wrote my reply. One of the reasons for keeping everything in one thread. This particular issue spanned three different threads because of subject changes. It's sometimes very difficult to know when to change the subject. I always try not too unless I have totally changed the direction the thread is taking. Will adjust documentation accordingly. I saw that - it's great to see someone actually documenting what is discussed here. Thanks!!! Ross
Re: Comment on index.html (Re: Where to change comments to configuration files)
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 09:49 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: > Ferdinand Soethe wrote: > >... > > 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. > > As far as I am aware the only inconsistency is that the index page > credits will no longer work. Thorsten has already said this is fixed in > views and I have said it is easy to fix in skins if my existing > suggestions are tested and prove to be correct. Yeah it is *very easy*: 1 have a look at pelts site2xhtml.xsl and search for $filename = 'index.html' 2 at into the fresh site skinconf something like (and extend the dtd!) 3 change all results from 1 to $filename=$config/credits/@filename That's it. ;-) HTH -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: Comment on index.html (Re: Where to change comments to configuration files)
Ross Gardler wrote: RG> But that simply is not correct. It *is* configurable as I have written RG> on a number of occasions now. Sorry, I shouldn't respond to messages one by one. That way I missed your solution in 'Re: Inkonsistency in implementation of default file and site.xml and what to do about it' when I wrote my reply. Will adjust documentation accordingly. -- Ferdinand Soethe
Re: Comment on index.html (Re: Where to change comments to configuration files)
Ferdinand Soethe wrote: Ross Gardler wrote: (about this comment 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. As far as I am aware the only inconsistency is that the index page credits will no longer work. Thorsten has already said this is fixed in views and I have said it is easy to fix in skins if my existing suggestions are tested and prove to be correct. 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'm not -1 on the comment, only -1 on the current wording. My issue is that it gives the false impression that it is not a configurable feature. I feel that inquisitive minds will stumple about the comment and come back asking for the reasons behind this or ways around this anyway. In my experience users don't ask questions if something is written in the docs. Potential devs might, but users don't. 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. But that simply is not correct. It *is* configurable as I have written on a number of occasions now. 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. So put a link to a document that provides those twenty lines. 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. FAQ's are good. Ross
Comment on index.html (Re: Where to change comments to configuration files)
Ross Gardler wrote: (about this comment 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
