| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 09:08:19PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote: |
| 2 |
> I spoke to you about this in PM, but I think I didn't make it clear, |
| 3 |
> so here we are :) |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> WRT links in file updates, this seems completely backwards. If a user |
| 6 |
> was admining over ssh, it would be far easier for them to load www.g.o |
| 7 |
> in their browser vs. copying link from terminal to their browser, but |
| 8 |
> for that matter, why is ssh relevent wrt links in files, but not when |
| 9 |
> we are talking about it being lightweight? If a user is not expected |
| 10 |
> to have a browser to recieve the news, how can they be expected to |
| 11 |
> have one to view doc's about it. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Links would be to guides, and bugs. |
| 14 |
Like it or not, that requires a browser... distributing notice of this |
| 15 |
information however does not require a browser. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Seems like these doc's should just be added to the news, none of them |
| 18 |
> are _that_ long. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Guides/docs live on the site; distributing a snapshot of them in a |
| 21 |
news posting is a bad idea... forcing an emerge --sync to get at a doc |
| 22 |
is just plain daft. |
| 23 |
~harring |
Archives