On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 01:20:58PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Other things to consider are stability of external links. > Have you seen the .htaccess file lately?
Yes, there's a lot of old cruft. How many people look at 2.6, or even worse, 2.7? Shouldn't we make those a "this link has been changed" page for a year, then remove the links altogether? Stuff like /install is potentially useful; I'm not arguing that we should try to phase out all the redirects. But I think that most of them can go. Put it another way: if we're willing to change the input syntax to simplify our lives, we should be willing to change the website links. :) > > In terms of the documentation / user experience, I don't think > > that having /web/ adds anything; it just makes the URLs four > > characters longer. > > That's the con, it's somehow uncool to have the main web at > /web, instead of at . Yes. *shrug* I think we've discussed it enough. Yes, removing the /web/ would make things a bit trickier to set up the rsync, and might break a few links. Of course, the new website has a fairly different directory structure anyway, so we'd get such complaints anyway. (we should probably set up a catch-all to point to the main index page) Let's just get a decision. I'm abstaining -- I don't really care if it's in the uncool /web/ any more. I just want to have a definite goal to consider when working on build systems. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
