Hi again, On 29.11.2012, at 21:10, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:> Max Horn wrote: > >> 1) Is there any chance the website could be updated? > > I'd like to have the flac.sf.net website re-directed to > https://www.xiph.org/flac/ . Until the re-direct happens > the rest of the world still points to sf.net.So we are still waiting for Josh to grant admin rights for the SF.net project to Ralph Giles (SF.net username 'giles') and or Erik (username?), which only requires a few clicks. If Josh does not reply within some more time, you could also simply request the SF.net staff to do this for you, by filing a support request at https://sourceforge.net/p/forge/site-support/new/ Of course they will want to ensure that you have a good case in taking over that SF.net project, esp. since flac is quite high profile. But I am sure that you can convince them, esp. by pointing to the xiph hosted git repos, and perhaps pointing to flac-dev archives which document that Erik is new maintainer, and that Josh knows about this: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2012-February/003083.html http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2012-April/003345.html http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2012-April/003340.html (the last "Back from hiatus" -- sadly, it seems to have been a rather short return? :-( ) However, that all does not address my main wish: The new website still has exactly (?) the same content as the old one. Could you please at least add a single paragraph (ideally in big red bliniking letters?) that there is new development work in progress, with a link to the new git repos? This would be IMHO a very important and major improvement over the current state of total non-information... If you point me to the sources of the site (is there a repos for it?), I'll be happy to provide a patch for this, too!> >> 2) Any chance for a new release? Just bug fixes would be >> enough. > > I'd like to do a release some time between now and xmas. That > release would be something like what us in Xiph's git right > now. > >> 3) Does anybody feel responsible for going through the bug >> and patch trackers at SF.net? > > I did spend some time going through those. There didn't seem > to be much there in terms of valuable patches. >> If there is something I can do to assist with any of these things, >> I'll try to help. > > The most useful thing would be to have a second look at the > SF bug tracker and see it there is anything there that isn't > already fixed in Xiph's git repo.OK. In order to avoid duplicating efforts, it would be good if everybody who reviews a patch leaves comments there, even if those simply indicate that the patch is obsolete. Until the website gets updated, I think it would also be helpful (for the patch submitter) to include a link to the new git repository. Of course closing those patches (which would be the nice thing to do) would require to have the appropriate rights first, but this can still be done later, as long as the review results are recorded on each item :-). As a start, I verified that my own ancient patch is obsolete now, and closed it myself. Cheers, Max
On 12-12-12 10:47 AM, Max Horn wrote:> If you point me to the sources of the site (is there a repos for it?), I'll be happy to provide a patch for this, too!The new site repo is https://git.xiph.org/flac-website.git> As a start, I verified that my own ancient patch is obsolete now, and closed it myself.Thanks! -r
On 12.12.2012, at 20:10, Ralph Giles wrote:> On 12-12-12 10:47 AM, Max Horn wrote: > >> If you point me to the sources of the site (is there a repos for it?), I'll be happy to provide a patch for this, too! > > The new site repo is https://git.xiph.org/flac-website.gitThanks. I'll restrict to small patches for now, as I would hope that real site was actually generating some of the content (e.g. the stuff on index.html, news.html and in the atom feed looks as if it is coming from a common source). Though I am inclined to remove the (severely outdated) russian version... Ah well, but let's start small :) Other than that, are there any other plans to overhaul the website already?> >> As a start, I verified that my own ancient patch is obsolete now, and closed it myself. > > Thanks!I also got Rich Bowen (DrBacchus on IRC) to chime in on the whole SF.net project matter, but he email himself by now, so I'll let you guys figure it out from here ;). Cheers, Max
On 12-12-12 19:47, Max Horn wrote:> If you point me to the sources of the site (is there a repos for it?), I'll be happy to provide a patch for this, too!I already submitted a patch (see the mailinglist for the 14th of september) to update the news section (and to make it easier to update) but no one has replied to that yet...
Martijn van Beurden wrote:> On 12-12-12 19:47, Max Horn wrote: > I already submitted a patch (see the mailinglist for the 14th of > september) to update the news section (and to make it easier to update) > but no one has replied to that yet...Sorry, I can't find that patch. Can you resend it please? Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/
On 12.12.2012, at 20:10, Ralph Giles wrote:> On 12-12-12 10:47 AM, Max Horn wrote: > >> If you point me to the sources of the site (is there a repos for it?), I'll be happy to provide a patch for this, too! > > The new site repo is https://git.xiph.org/flac-website.gitHum. Actually, I just noticed that the website is also in the flac repos itself, under doc/html/ The nasty part is: They differ in a lot of ways. Indeed, the one inside flac.git claims to be newer (last updated 2009) than the one in flac-website (last updated 2007?). On the other hand, download.html in flac.git links to flac-1.2.1a.exe while ine flac-website.git it links to flac-1.2.1b.exe -- still, I wonder if there are other discrepancies? Now, let's suppose we review the changes and merge them over if necessary (I assume this should be doable by going back to the head revision of flac-website.git, before any cleanups; easy enough). Several questions pop up: 1) Do you prefer to keep the website in a separate repository, as it is now? If yes, the copy in flac.git/doc/html should be removed. If no, flac-website.git should be removed. 2) In either case, the history should be consolidated: Either by suitable cherry picking / grafting the recent flac-website.git history over flac.git. Or else by re-creating flac-website.git: First, use "git filter-branch" to make a copy of the flac.git/doc/html dir with full history (but with that dir as root dir), then graft the handful commits of flac-website.git atop that. I have experience doing that and can be of assistance, if so desired. 3) What about the doxygen generated API docs? Keeping a static copy as in flac-website.git is not a good solution... One way would be to just remove the API docs from git completely, and rely on running doxygen on the webserver, perhaps by a cron job. Or perhaps you want to have it in the repository. If flac-website.git is abolished, that is easy enough to do. If flac-website.git is kept, then a way to achieve this would be to use the git submodule feature to place a copy of flac-website into flac.git/doc/html ... although this would somewhat defeat the idea behind keeping the website separate. (Personally, I think generated doxygen docs should not be part of the repos, but that's just me). Cheers, Max