> > I would say that Effecting a full scale 'all in one go' transition is > > VERY hard. I would suggest letting Liam make the poage official, and > > continue refining the layout. > > I don't see how a transition in one go is very hard at all. The DRI > website is fairly small, all you have to do is cut-n-paste the existing > content and re-arrange it into new pages as you see fit. In terms of getting a working site not at all, in terms of making everyone happy not so easy. > How do you think I made the current website? > > If you can't handle cutting and pasting, the you shouldn't be designing > websites ... That's not quite how I did it, needless to say the content has been cleanly seperated from layout by hand. > > The original layout of content was so illogical that there is really > > no way to transition gradually and still have things make sense. > > Now you are contradicting yourself. You just said it was hard to make a > transition in one go, now you say it is impossible to make a gradual > transition. Which is it then? neither which is why he gave up <g>
I seperated it - content done in one go (cut and paste), layout, styling, editing, tweaking, etc done in phases. In other words both ways. > > Liam is a braver man than I - I gave up after doing a significant > > amount of re-organisation, because I couldnt face the problem of doing > > a phased update. > > I don't think anyone wants a phased update. For a site as small as the > DRI site, a one-go replacement makes sense. That is also what I told you > originally when you asked me about it. Phased as in looks - the content's all there except for the outdated bits that have been removed or the new bits that have been added. > > I think that unless anyone has a MAJOR complaint about the new site, > > it should become the default. > > Well, I for one don't think so. The current site didn't replace the > previous site until I had adressed all the problems people had with it. > I went through several revisions of the site on a different server until > it went live on dri.sf.net. btw what about now? > I don't think the standards should be lowered just because you guys > can't handle making revisions to the site before it goes live. I'm not worried about standards it validates at w3c. <g> > > I must confess that I am not surprised that the developers have STILL > > not given Liam a complete list of supported features - despite being > > aske long ago by him, and several times, more recently by me. > > I must say that I am not surprised either. The developers have better > things to do, such as actually working on the drivers (imagine that), > than to compile lists of supported features. David is working on something that may well make this very painless... > > I can download the linux kernel and Hack HAck Hack - its truely open, > > specs and all. I cannot do this with DRI - there are no specs. all I > > can do is poke blindly. > > As I said above, if you were really serious about becoming a developer > you would be able to obtain documentation from the companies. Obviously > you must be doing something wrong ... Don't be petty. I recall from this list lots of people struggling to get documentation. ATI doesn't want HyperZ / iDCT implemented iirc. There's the whole S3TC issue, obviously 3d card manufacturers are being anal about there doc's. Liam ---- it depends ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
