Re: FYI, GIT mirror of glibc's cvs repository

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at codesourcery dot com>]

Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I agree. At the moment it's easier to edit the sourceware page. I don't 
> > have a clue what I have to do to edit the gnu.org page.
>
> As I told you, it's via Savannah.  Don't ask me how to make a Savannah
> account work this year.  But once you do, I'll approve you for the libc
> project and then you can commit web pages to cvs as they are done for all
> gnu.org project pages.

I was being facetious. I have a Savannah account, and as far as can 
tell, I need to become a "libc" projects member. As a member I can 
modify the webpages in cvs. I've sent in my request for inclusion in the 
project.

> The sourceware page is simple and keeps a nice trivial look.
> It just talks about the resources on sourceware for hackers.
>
> The gnu.org page is the official GNU face of the GNU C Library.
> It follows the www.gnu.org look and feel, and reflects the GNU
> Project's message and priorities.  That page's first mandate is
> to explain what glibc is about to an unfamiliar user, and direct
> people who want to use it, are using it, or want to hack on it,
> to the information they need.

Mike makes a good point. Why have two sites at all? We should be able to 
put all this information on a single site. The site would have separate 
pages for different contexts e.g. new users, developers, news, etc.

The benefits of one site include only needing to direct users at one 
site, and only updating one site.

> It's fine to consolidate some information and have one site's pages
> point to pages on the other for the kind of information that's
> appropriate to each site.

Like gcc, is there any reason we couldn't acquire "http://glibc.gnu.org"; 
to use as a centralized site, pointing all other sites there?

Cheers,
Carlos.
--
Carlos O'Donell
CodeSourcery
carlos@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x716