From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: craig@jcb-sc.com To: law@cygnus.com Cc: craig@jcb-sc.com Subject: Re: 1.1.2 bug, news lists Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 20:54:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990306044013.7118.qmail@deer> In-reply-to: < 16583.920670994@hurl.cygnus.com > (message from Jeffrey A Law onFri, 05 Mar 1999 14:56:34 -0700) References: <16583.920670994@hurl.cygnus.com> <16583.920670994@hurl.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03/msg00256.html > In message < 19990305184852.5825.qmail@deer >you write: > > Jeff and others, before we get too closed-down on the 1.1.2 front, > > could y'all make sure we'll ship it with good pointers to live > > information on the web pages regarding bugs and news? >I don't think we should hold up a release for this, at least not this >release. It'd be nice if we can get it in, but if we can't, then we should >move on, much like any other new feature. Okay, agreed. > > In particular, Jeff, the cgi-bin/fortrannews and cgi-bin/fortranbugs > > scripts (which I can't find in my checked-out copy of wwwdocs, FWIW) > > seem *nearly* ready for prime-time, and I'd like them to replace > > the fortran.html stuff I recently updated by hand-tweaking the > > outputs of texi2html over bugs.texi and news.texi. >The cgi scripts aren't particularly well suited for inclusion in a >distribution since they rely on being able to grope around in the cvs >repository. I wasn't suggesting putting them in the *distribution* -- rather, that we make sure the distribution contains useful *pointers*, which it might already. 1.1.2 would be great, 1.2 should definitely be addressed. >Nor are we currently shipping our entire web site content with releases. Hey, I think we should remove things like texinfo and derived files output by gperf and lex and such -- I'm not about to suggest shipping the entire web site, or any part of it, with a distribution!! :) >[ The cgi scripts aren't in the repo because I haven't checked them -- they > were intended to show the kinds of things we can do. Checking them in > is a trivial thing to do though. ] Okay. > > So, I'm thinking there shouldn't be any equivalent to fortran.html > > in the egcs-1.1.2 info on the web page -- though there should be a > > link to the new bugs/news info that's automatically generated. >This sounds reasonable and easy. Where precisely do you want me to link in >the cgi scripts? I'm not sure. But, I think they should probably be reached via "Fortran News" and "Fortran Bugs" links from "News" and "Bugs" pages, which are reachable in turn from the egcs home page. I don't exactly have a lot of experience surfing the web to know what others do, though. It's probably sufficient to have the distribution point to the web site (home page) itself, if we agree to have to that home page clearly identify links to the news and known-bugs info. >And when you answer that question I suspect you'll find that you do want >a Fortran page, which has links to the bug list and news items (and possibly >the entire Fortran manual). Oh, yes, I'm pretty sure a Fortran page makes sense, just not the current (or previous) fortran.html file that is almost entirely obviated by your cgi-bin scripts! That is, I think you and Dave Love (?) and whoever else is right that we should lean towards using automated solutions over relying on hand-editing stuff as I've done (via a semi-automated process). So I feel the Fortran page should have pointers to your scripts, and other stuff that is *not* easily automated (derived from g77's news.texi and bugs.texi files). Whatever that other stuff might be, I'm not worrying about right now. And/or, the home page should have "Known Bugs" and "Release News" pointers to pages that, in turn, include pointers to the fortranbugs and fortrannews thingies. > > What I'm especially interested in seeing is the top-level egcs page > > contain two items: > > > > We try to provide late-breaking information on *known bugs*, and > > *news* about items already planned for upcoming releases. >Again, I don't think we're really in a position to do this. And I'd >prefer to have a little more of a clue how to tie this stuff in before we >start adding it to distributions. *Not* distributions. Well, if we decide to put it on the web page, perhaps distributions can point to < http://egcs.cygnus.com/known-bugs > and < http://egcs.cygnus.com/release-news >, or some such things, in specific cases like g77's bugs.texi and news.texi files. That way, the distributions contain documentation of known bugs and release news as of the releases of those distributions, but also contain prominent pointers to "live" information on the web. >Consider that the html pages we include in the distribution are meant to >be viewed locally. Now you want to have some content remote. Keeping these >links correct with a mixture of local and remote content isn't trivial. That's why I asked y'all to think about this, because I don't know what all the issues are. I don't even see why we ship HTML pages with the distribution, unless they're truly source files (i.e. not derived from other files)...and even then I'd wonder why they are in HTML and not something higher-level, like texinfo (or, for that matter, plain-text). But I haven't kept track of the pertinent discussions very well, so there might be good answers to these opinions -- I don't really need to know them now, so don't feel you have to rebut my opinions here. (I.e. I know I still have a lot to learn.) >Well, based on earlier conversations I think instead of farting around with >@ifhtml and friends that longer term we should have the whole manual online >in html form with links directly into the bugs and news section. Ah, that would be pretty nice. But we'd still need @ifhtml and friends to be supported by texi2html, if we want one *source* for the relevant docs, right? >In such a scheme you'd want @ifhtml/@ifnothtml only for things which you >want to appear in the texi or html docs, but not the other. I doubt there's >much content of this nature. Hmm, you might be right. So far I'm just using it to kludge around the different contexts due to having snippets of the docs, instead of the full g77 docs, made available via HTML, I guess. tq vm, (burley) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: craig@jcb-sc.com To: law@cygnus.com Cc: craig@jcb-sc.com Subject: Re: 1.1.2 bug, news lists Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <19990306044013.7118.qmail@deer> References: <16583.920670994@hurl.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00257.html Message-ID: <19990331234600.x6ZIHRZCFiJloIPqx5zBJefT0D5UHE8jt5BmEU1aBJM@z> > In message < 19990305184852.5825.qmail@deer >you write: > > Jeff and others, before we get too closed-down on the 1.1.2 front, > > could y'all make sure we'll ship it with good pointers to live > > information on the web pages regarding bugs and news? >I don't think we should hold up a release for this, at least not this >release. It'd be nice if we can get it in, but if we can't, then we should >move on, much like any other new feature. Okay, agreed. > > In particular, Jeff, the cgi-bin/fortrannews and cgi-bin/fortranbugs > > scripts (which I can't find in my checked-out copy of wwwdocs, FWIW) > > seem *nearly* ready for prime-time, and I'd like them to replace > > the fortran.html stuff I recently updated by hand-tweaking the > > outputs of texi2html over bugs.texi and news.texi. >The cgi scripts aren't particularly well suited for inclusion in a >distribution since they rely on being able to grope around in the cvs >repository. I wasn't suggesting putting them in the *distribution* -- rather, that we make sure the distribution contains useful *pointers*, which it might already. 1.1.2 would be great, 1.2 should definitely be addressed. >Nor are we currently shipping our entire web site content with releases. Hey, I think we should remove things like texinfo and derived files output by gperf and lex and such -- I'm not about to suggest shipping the entire web site, or any part of it, with a distribution!! :) >[ The cgi scripts aren't in the repo because I haven't checked them -- they > were intended to show the kinds of things we can do. Checking them in > is a trivial thing to do though. ] Okay. > > So, I'm thinking there shouldn't be any equivalent to fortran.html > > in the egcs-1.1.2 info on the web page -- though there should be a > > link to the new bugs/news info that's automatically generated. >This sounds reasonable and easy. Where precisely do you want me to link in >the cgi scripts? I'm not sure. But, I think they should probably be reached via "Fortran News" and "Fortran Bugs" links from "News" and "Bugs" pages, which are reachable in turn from the egcs home page. I don't exactly have a lot of experience surfing the web to know what others do, though. It's probably sufficient to have the distribution point to the web site (home page) itself, if we agree to have to that home page clearly identify links to the news and known-bugs info. >And when you answer that question I suspect you'll find that you do want >a Fortran page, which has links to the bug list and news items (and possibly >the entire Fortran manual). Oh, yes, I'm pretty sure a Fortran page makes sense, just not the current (or previous) fortran.html file that is almost entirely obviated by your cgi-bin scripts! That is, I think you and Dave Love (?) and whoever else is right that we should lean towards using automated solutions over relying on hand-editing stuff as I've done (via a semi-automated process). So I feel the Fortran page should have pointers to your scripts, and other stuff that is *not* easily automated (derived from g77's news.texi and bugs.texi files). Whatever that other stuff might be, I'm not worrying about right now. And/or, the home page should have "Known Bugs" and "Release News" pointers to pages that, in turn, include pointers to the fortranbugs and fortrannews thingies. > > What I'm especially interested in seeing is the top-level egcs page > > contain two items: > > > > We try to provide late-breaking information on *known bugs*, and > > *news* about items already planned for upcoming releases. >Again, I don't think we're really in a position to do this. And I'd >prefer to have a little more of a clue how to tie this stuff in before we >start adding it to distributions. *Not* distributions. Well, if we decide to put it on the web page, perhaps distributions can point to < http://egcs.cygnus.com/known-bugs > and < http://egcs.cygnus.com/release-news >, or some such things, in specific cases like g77's bugs.texi and news.texi files. That way, the distributions contain documentation of known bugs and release news as of the releases of those distributions, but also contain prominent pointers to "live" information on the web. >Consider that the html pages we include in the distribution are meant to >be viewed locally. Now you want to have some content remote. Keeping these >links correct with a mixture of local and remote content isn't trivial. That's why I asked y'all to think about this, because I don't know what all the issues are. I don't even see why we ship HTML pages with the distribution, unless they're truly source files (i.e. not derived from other files)...and even then I'd wonder why they are in HTML and not something higher-level, like texinfo (or, for that matter, plain-text). But I haven't kept track of the pertinent discussions very well, so there might be good answers to these opinions -- I don't really need to know them now, so don't feel you have to rebut my opinions here. (I.e. I know I still have a lot to learn.) >Well, based on earlier conversations I think instead of farting around with >@ifhtml and friends that longer term we should have the whole manual online >in html form with links directly into the bugs and news section. Ah, that would be pretty nice. But we'd still need @ifhtml and friends to be supported by texi2html, if we want one *source* for the relevant docs, right? >In such a scheme you'd want @ifhtml/@ifnothtml only for things which you >want to appear in the texi or html docs, but not the other. I doubt there's >much content of this nature. Hmm, you might be right. So far I'm just using it to kludge around the different contexts due to having snippets of the docs, instead of the full g77 docs, made available via HTML, I guess. tq vm, (burley)