Re: Issue 872 in lilypond: Changes split-page has broken images

[Graham Percival]

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