As someone who doesn't use the gitlab interface, it was only now that I realized that there was a README.md.
I just looked over that README, and realized that it was not maintained. I quickly concluded that I do not have the resources to maintain both this file and the HTML file at https://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/, and the latter is what I have been updating with new releases. So the former must go.
I apologize for this draconian step.
Of course nothing has been lost, it is all in the git history.
I am willing to entertain the argument that the index.html be deprecated instead of the Markdown page. However, I will not entertain requests for both. One will have to be merely a pointer to the other.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.net wrote:
As someone who doesn't use the gitlab interface, it was only now that I realized that there was a README.md.
I just looked over that README, and realized that it was not maintained. I quickly concluded that I do not have the resources to maintain both this file and the HTML file at https://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/, and the latter is what I have been updating with new releases. So the former must go.
I apologize for this draconian step.
Of course nothing has been lost, it is all in the git history.
What was not maintained about it? That it still had an entry for debian/ ? That it didn't have entries for your scripts?
The README.md had a different purpose than the index.html. While the index.html was an introduction for users who just use ASDF, the README.md was an introduction for hackers who checked out the asdf git repo, giving a detailed map of what files or directories contain what in that repo. It's a description that I miss in most source repositories.
I am willing to entertain the argument that the index.html be deprecated instead of the Markdown page. However, I will not entertain requests for both. One will have to be merely a pointer to the other.
I'm still not sure what was wrong with the README file. What obsolete information did it have or fail to have, that you'd document in index.html instead?
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Those who confuse goods and rights will end up having neither.
On 8/2/16 Aug 2 -10:32 PM, Faré wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.net wrote:
As someone who doesn't use the gitlab interface, it was only now that I realized that there was a README.md.
I just looked over that README, and realized that it was not maintained. I quickly concluded that I do not have the resources to maintain both this file and the HTML file at https://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/, and the latter is what I have been updating with new releases. So the former must go.
[...snip...]
I'm still not sure what was wrong with the README file. What obsolete information did it have or fail to have, that you'd document in index.html instead?
The most prominent issue is that it still describes the minimakefile build process as if it was current. That is not the currently maintained build process, and it's not what you get if you simply use "make" in the asdf source directory. So if you follow the directions given in the README.md they don't work.
Better that there be no information than wrong information.
I simply do not have time to fix the README.md
Indeed, I'm not willing to take on the index.html, the manual, the Changelog, and now yet another file of documentation.
At some point we may be able to bring the README.md back, but I don't have the resources for it now. So it has to go.
Best regards, R
Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.net wrote:
I just looked over that README, and realized that it was not maintained. I quickly concluded that I do not have the resources to maintain both this file and the HTML file at https://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/, and the latter is what I have been updating with new releases. So the former must go.
FWIW, I took the habit of maintaining only one documentation source (in Texinfo format) and extracting README files and others (such as INSTALL) from there, hence also avoiding the maintenance of duplicate information.
It's easy to extract specific chapters from an Info file. For instance, here's a Makefile target that I have in Clon:
INSTALL: doc/$(PROJECT)-user.info info --file=./doc/$(PROJECT)-user.info \ -n Installation \ -n Configuration \ -n 'Non-ANSI Features' \ -n 'Supported Platforms' \ --output=$@ perl -pi -e 's/^File:.*\n//g' $@
-
Didier Verna -
Faré -
Robert Goldman