Redesign of dlang.org

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 12/22/2015 02:19 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-12-21 18:37, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> That's a large leap. I suggest using Ddoc instead of Sass compact CSS
>> files, see the existing instance at
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/blob/master/css/cssmenu.css.dd.
>>
>>
>>
>> CoffeeScript sounds like a nice thing to add and is from what I've heard
>> reasonably stable.
>>
>> We can't make the site depend on dub at this time. There have been
>> situations in the past when dub wouldn't build and nobody was available
>> to work on it. At that time only the alternate documentation got broken,
>> but if the site depends on it we're looking at catastrophic failure.
>
> I have no interest in using Ddoc. If that's a requirement we can close
> down the redesign idea completely.

I was afraid you were going to say this. Looks like we're reaching an 
impasse again, so let me explain the situation from where I stand and 
kindly attempt to change your viewpoint a bit.

One simple matter of fact is that most work and maintenance on dlang.org 
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/graphs/contributors) is 
done by a handful of folks: Walter, myself, Kenji, Martin, Vladimir, 
followed by a long tail. Lately it's been Vladimir, Martin, and myself 
who did most maintenance work.

A consequence of that is when someone proposes a different technology 
for dlang.org, the proposal is really that Vladimir, Martin, and me 
become fluent in it. This is a very simple fact that I have had 
difficulty communicating. I've said several times that the only thing 
that would make e.g. vibe.d more used on dlang.org is the availability 
of people able and willing to help with it.

As far as I understand you are well versed in a variety of Web-related 
tools, and have your preferences in terms of tooling you use etc. That's 
totally cool. Also, my understanding is that you'd consider helping with 
the redesign but only as a one-off contribution; there'd be no implied 
commitment that you'd be available for solving various issues related to 
the technologies you propose. This makes things more difficult for 
everyone involved. What would help would be a bit more flexibility with 
the choices made and more convergence toward compromise. You can't come 
with a battery of large changes in a take it or leave it manner.


Thanks,

Andrei