linaro-infrastructure-stakeholders team mailing list archive

[James Westby <james.westby@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:58:05 +0100, Loïc Minier <loic.minier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  I did realize earlier today that you were not thinking of /delivering/
>  the releases in terms of having a central place where people can
>  technically find them, but that this was all about /marketing/ what
>  Linaro is doing, notably monthly releases.

Indeed.

>  In this light, please scrap my suggestions about re-using
>  releases.linaro.org (well technically we could still re-use it or use
>  it more, but that's irrelevant).

In my mockups I assumed that it would be releases.linaro.org and
included evaluation builds there. I don't have a strong preference at
this stage.

>  I checked your mockup, and basically I wondered whether the site should
>  be structured around the fact that people will interested in a specific
>  piece of software, or whether they are interested in the latest stuff.
>  Basically, we could either list "These things were recently released:"
>  or we could have "Get latest toolchain release", "Get latest kernel
>  release" etc.

I think they could be two useful views. I think people would keep coming
back for the latest toolchain, but casual browsers could be attracted by
seeing something interesting we just released.

>  It's tempting to re-visit the problem of URL proliferation and wonder
>  whether this should be part of "status.linaro.org", with one angle
>  being blueprint progress, another angle being software releases etc.

I'm not sure about that. My understanding is that status.linaro.org is
more targeted to people interested in the operation of Linaro. The
hand-wavy plan is indeed to have several different sources of
information there, workitems, bug and patch metrics, etc., and including
releases there could be a good idea.

I'm not sure that third-party developers are going to be particularly
interested in the workitems progress, they just want the shiny code.

Not to say that we have to reimplement everything, but I'm not sure
directing third-party developers to status.linaro.org is the right thing
to do.

>  But this does feel a bit like creating a modern Linaro website, and
>  something in the back of my mind tells me this could easily become a
>  really large project!

Indeed. I think we can work incrementally, but this proposal is partly
due to not having a world-beating website.

Thanks,

James