[missing implementations]

[Raymond Toy]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:33 AM Erik Huelsmann <ehuels at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Raymond,
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 7:37 PM Raymond Toy <toy.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel Kochmański <daniel at turtleware.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> new website is great. There are though a few suprises:
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the new site looks really nice.
>>
>
> Thanks! (On behalf of Mariano who created the design, I guess)
>
>
>> I think the latest news section should have common-lisp news first. (I
>> couldn't care less about what reddit has to say, but maybe that's just me.)
>>
>
> Actually, that's not just you. I don't really care about reddit either,
> personally. I'd like the front page to convey news to those who don't read
> their mail and don't read this mailing list (but do visit the site, I
> guess). So, yes, this is IMO a great enhancement.
>

Just moving reddit down to the bottom would be ok for me. :-)

>
>
>> The getting started page could be a bit more inclusive (or less
>> exclusive).
>>
>
> I understand where you're coming from. The problem we're having is: we
> want to get a newbie started, not overwhelmed. Do you have a suggestion how
> we can achieve that without excluding all the perfectly good
> implementations that currently aren't listed on that page?
>

Yeah, I don't really have a good answer for that.  Interestingly, none of
the implementations listed are actually hosted on common-lisp.net. :-)
That shouldn't be a requirement though!

>
>
>> - clisp and lispworks are not listed in Resources -> Common Lisp
>>> Implementations
>>>
>> There are others missing like cmucl and gcl.  What is the criteria here?
>>
>
> Other than being a Common Lisp implementation? None. There's an issue to
> track this point and I've added a comment to that extent to that issue
> indeed: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/clo/cl-site/issues/13
>
>
>> I think the order of the resources pull down should have lisp
>> implementations first.
>>
>
>
>> Resources->Libraries includes a section on implementations.  That seems
>> wrong.
>>
>
> Correct on both accounts. I've created issues for both. (
> https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/clo/cl-site/issues/23 and
> https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/clo/cl-site/issues/24).
>
>
>> (Also, what is the criteria for having a link of standard compliance or
>> conformance?)
>>
>
> Basically, I think these link to compliance/conformance statements. If
> CMUCL or any other implementation has one, I think those should be added.
> As per the CL standard, you're compliant when you state your level of
> compliance :-)
>

I'll see what I can do....

>
>
>> I also random clicked on some of the projects.  Quite a few are just
>> place holders.  In those cases, could they just be redirected to the git
>> repo?  It just makes the project look totally dead.
>>
>
> When did you do that? I just yesterday changed a bit of configuration
> which caused some of the sites which actually had both the placeholder
> *and* real content, turn up the real content instead of the placeholder.
> This has been a configuration issue with the site for the last few years
> (in combination with laziness of the projects not removing the
> placeholder...)
>

I did that just before sending out this message.  Maybe the ones that I
clicked on don't have any code either.  Hard to say. :-)

>
> I've issued a plan to this mailing list to do exactly as you propose and
> direct projects without project pages to the GitLab group pages (which list
> all the groups Git repositories).
>

I realized that just after sending the message.  I think it's a good plan,
obviously.

>
>
>> I would be kind of neat if the project pages that happen to be hosted on
>> common-lisp.net use a uniform style.  That would make the sites look
>> really nice.  (Cmucl just redirects to it's wiki page, which is better than
>> nothing.)
>>
>
> Traditionally, the pages on the site all had their own style as selected
> by the project members. Do we want to change that? I mean, sure, it makes
> the site look more consistent. Maybe we can approach the project members of
> the various projects and ask them to align to a single style?
>

I don't want to enforce a rule like that.  But it would be nice if it were
easy to set up the site using the same style. Then old projects can decide
if they want to or not and new projects will get the site-wide style by
default.

These all seem to be a bit of work, so I'm not saying it's a must.  People
have other things to do too.


>
>> The project hosting page (https://common-lisp.net/project-intro)
>> mentions CVS access in the Table of Contents.  That's all gone.  Similarly,
>> the "Repositories over the web" section mentions cvs and subversion, as the
>> "Subversion" section.  Also, the section on git repos mentions the commit
>> list is project-cvs at common-lisp.net.  Is that true?  Finally, IIRC, Trac
>> is still available, but really rather limited, maybe even mostly
>> read-only.  (Maybe also need to update https://common-lisp.net/tools#trac.)
>> Maybe there needs to be a mention somewhere (I didn't find any) that
>> c-l.net is using gitlab. (BTW, is there a way to find out what version
>> of gitlab is being used?)
>>
>
> In general that page is outdated. We're still building the site generator
> to allow easier editing of the sources such as support for Markdown to
> allow quicker editing and adjustment of content.
>
> As for the project-cvs mailing list: yes, that has been true until very
> recently. I think having a commit mailing list doesn't make as much sense
> as it used to, given that GitLab allows monitoring of commits in similar
> ways. Although if projects *want* a mailing list to send their commit
> messages to, that's still supported.
>
>
>> These are just some things I noticed when looking over this new site for
>> the first time.  Many of these are probably issues with the old site, so
>> it's kind of expected the new one has the same issues.
>>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>> It looks really great, though!
>>
>>
> Thanks for taking the time to provide us with feedback!
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Bye,
>
> Erik.
>
> http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
> Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
>


-- 
Ray
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/clo-devel/attachments/20181014/a74a7c9e/attachment.html>