[Pdweb] please put the dev docs back

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

Put the site back the way it was.  You have broken days and days of  
my work without even the courtesy of asking.  Once the site is back  
to the original, then we can talk about new ideas.

So this is how you repay me?  I spent many, many hours getting Gem  
working on the auto-builders and you fuck up my work?  That is  
really, really low.  I was holding on to the pure-data.info because I  
feared something like this.  I thought you had learned so I signed  
over the domain name to you.  And you do this to me.  And you don't  
even have the courage to admit you were wrong and set things right.   
You're still fighting.  This is a ridiculous and massive waste of  
time and energy.

.hc

On Sep 27, 2006, at 4:20 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> hi.
>
> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 2006, at 6:26 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>>
>>> after all, the /dev section IS "documentation about development",  
>>> and not "development" itself.
>> By that standard then everything on the web is documentation.  We  
>> are using a narrower definition which makes a lot more sense.   
>> Manuals, HOWTOs, tutorials, these are documentation.  Everything  
>> in /docs/developer was a HOWTO, manual, or tutorial
>
> like http://puredata.info/docs/developer/sourcenotes ?
>
>> The developer section is meant for developer tools: key links,  
>> bugtrackers, wikis for project management, etc.  The content in  
>> the wikis will probably ultimately end up being boiled down to  
>> docs, but they are not there yet.  The bugtracker is documentation  
>> on bugs, but it is not a manual, howto, or tutorial.
>> Please read the archives for a more in depth discussion.
>
> i did so.
> the discussion has taken place in 2003 when the site was set up.
> i do believe that several things in this design did not work out.
>
>>> so in theory(!) i see no reason to have 2 separate branches with  
>>> the same topic but different content.
>
> i still don't.
> even if there is some artificial segregation line between the 2  
> branches, which i could memorize.
> if i want to know what is going on in "development" (e.g. what's on  
> in pddp, or how the exact cvs download command was) i will just  
> click on the "development" tab (and not just me as a "noob" who  
> just wants to browse the information, but me as somebody who has  
> worked for years with the website's current structure).
>
>>>
>>> however, you are completely right: in practice there are external  
>>> links pointing to the old & deprecated location, which must be  
>>> handled.
>>> the good thing is, that this could be handled very easily: i can  
>>> set up a rewrite rule on the webserver, so that http:// 
>>> puredata.org/doc/dev is automatically redirected to http:// 
>>> puredata.org/dev which should make all the links valid again.
>> We discussed this stuff at length when we set up the website  
>> (check the archives).  Its been working well as far as I've seen.   
>> I see no reason to change it now.
>
> the discussion has taken place in 2003 when the site was set up.
> i don't think that it has been working so well.
>
>>> why i didn't ask? because we are really bad at decision-making.  
>>> most discussions stop at the point where "everybody" (this is:  
>>> you, me, probably a single 3rd person) has clarified their  
>>> poisition.
>> It takes 10 seconds to send such an email.  It would have saved us  
>> all a lot of time and hassle.
>
> how much time have you lost through this hazzle? (esp. when writing  
> an email takes you just 10 secs)
>
>
> if the docs/development/ section is really just meant as a  
> selection of how-to's, tutorials and manuals, then why don't we  
> just use some autocollector, that grabs all tutorials,... from / 
> dev/  (and wherever).
>
>
> just to reiterate why i do this:
> (overlapping) information is kept in 2 separate places.
> information therefore gets duplicated (cloned).
> maintainment of the cloned information usually only effects one  
> branch, resulting in either divergent information, outdated  
> information (in one branch).
> information that does not get duplicated is missing in one branch.
>
>
> mfg.asdr.
> IOhannes
>
> PS: your old links should now at least work.