The attached patch adds a link from the "GCC Binaries" page to the gfortran
binaries wiki page.
?
Paul
2005-07-27 Paul Brook <paul (AT) codesourcery (DOT) com>
* doc/install.texi: Add link to GFortran binaries wiki page.
:ADDPATCH documentation:

* doc/install.texi: Add link to GFortran binaries wiki page.
This is K.
:REVIEWMAIL:

Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Paul Brook wrote:
The attached patch adds a link from the "GCC Binaries" page to the gfortran
binaries wiki page.

Do we really need a separate page to track gfortran binaries? I'd hope
that we can get most (if not all) of those building GCC binary packages
to include gfortran.

And I'll note that the current Wiki page is relatively weak. For example:

. Please change the Wiki page to read GNU/Linux instead of Linux to
follow the rules mandated by the FSF.

. "detailed installation instructions" point to an empty page.

. The basic web usability rule of not naming links "here" or "see here"
are violated.

Gerald

Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:44 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Paul Brook wrote:
The attached patch adds a link from the "GCC Binaries" page to the gfortran
binaries wiki page.

Do we really need a separate page to track gfortran binaries? I'd hope
that we can get most (if not all) of those building GCC binary packages
to include gfortran.

And I'll note that the current Wiki page is relatively weak. For example:

. Please change the Wiki page to read GNU/Linux instead of Linux to
follow the rules mandated by the FSF.

. "detailed installation instructions" point to an empty page.

. The basic web usability rule of not naming links "here" or "see here"
are violated.

So, uh, fix it.
It probably took your 3x longer to write this message than it would have
to double click on the page and edit it.

Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
So, uh, fix it.
It probably took your 3x longer to write this message than it would have
to double click on the page and edit it.
You fail to see the educational value of (patch) reviews.
Gerald

Sunday 31 July 2005 23:44, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Paul Brook wrote:
The attached patch adds a link from the "GCC Binaries" page to the
gfortran binaries wiki page.

Do we really need a separate page to track gfortran binaries? I'd hope
that we can get most (if not all) of those building GCC binary packages
to include gfortran.

If and when that happens the wiki page will be obsolete, and we can remove the
link. The existence of these binaries is IMH proof that they are useful to
someone.

And I'll note that the current Wiki page is relatively weak. For example:

*. Please change the Wiki page to read GNU/Linux instead of Linux to
* *follow the rules mandated by the FSF.

*. "detailed installation instructions" point to an empty page.

*. The basic web usability rule of not naming links "here" or "see here"
* *are violated.

Maybe so. That's one of the reasons I didn't suggest adding the content of
that page to install.texi :-)

Paul

Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Paul Brook wrote:
>Do we really need a separate page to track gfortran binaries? I'd hope
>that we can get most (if not all) of those building GCC binary packages
>to include gfortran.
If and when that happens the wiki page will be obsolete, and we can
remove the link. The existence of these binaries is IMH proof that
they are useful to someone.

Fair enough. I'm just hoping gfortran will become very widely used and
commonly built rather sooner than later (at which point we can revert the
patch). :-)

Gerald

Mon, 2005-08-01 at 01:00 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
So, uh, fix it.
It probably took your 3x longer to write this message than it would have
to double click on the page and edit it.

You fail to see the educational value of (patch) reviews.

For most documentation?
Yes.
All having patch review for most documentation does is make it so we
don't have up-to-date or useful docs.

Repeat after me: Documentation is not code.

You fail to see the value of collaborative development for
documentation, while strangely, other projects have embraced it and have
*much* better documentation than we do.

Gerald

Mon, 2005-08-01 at 01:00 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
So, uh, fix it.
It probably took your 3x longer to write this message than it would have
to double click on the page and edit it.

You fail to see the educational value of (patch) reviews.

You just don't get it.
The idea is not to force the developers to work inside the box you want
them to work on, it is to collaborate and use tools that enable
developers to work inside the box *they* want to work in, while still
producing something *everyone* can use.

We are supposed to be encouraging developers and contributors.
Constantly putting roadblocks in their way does *not* do this.
Do you really think the reason our docs aren't good is because we don't
have enough process?
that we don't mandate enough contribution to them?

If you can't see this isn't the real root cause of the problem, there is
simply no point in continuing this discussion, and i'll go my way and
stop contributing to docs except as i'm required to as part of patches,
and happily stop maintaining tools like the wiki that everyone but you
seems to find useful.