This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patch for old FAQ links
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Subject: Re: Patch for old FAQ links
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:47:43 -0700
- cc: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Reply-To: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.LNX.4.30.0012240038390.994-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac
.uk>you write:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > I am really unhappy with F-O-M and the way we are (mis)handling FAQs.
> >
> > Originally, when the F-O-M was introduced, the "deal" was to use this
> > for day to day questions and move important FAQs into the appropriate
> > documentation. Unfortunately, and I bit as I had expected, this has
> > not happened.
>
> Is there any sign that the FOM has been of any use - that any users have
> contributed useful information to it (rather than simply dumping a badly
> phrased question, or an empty item, at a random point in the FOM, as if in
> hope for an answer) - justifying the loss of ability for people with CVS
> write access to do general reorganisation, cleanup, etc., or for anyone to
> submit patches to do the same, where this goes beyond what a generic FOM
> account allows?
If the world at large isn't contributing anything useful, then it seems to
me like FOM isn't worth the maintenance burden and we should go back to a
static web page like we had before.
I haven't looked at it closely, so I'll leave that decision to y'all.
jeff