Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:23:58PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>>>> correct. And I repeat that I see no actual gain countering this
>>>> annoyance... If there was enough on the plus side, I'd be happy to
>>>> live with it...
>>> Consistency is more important than general annoyance but I am trying to
>>
>> The system is *specifically designed* not to lock filenames to URLs. I
>> don't understand why you have such a hard time to accept that ;-)
>
> It isn't that I don't accept it. The design is fine. That doesn't mean
> it is a good idea to start naming files in a way that is counter to
> their purpose.
>
> Consider... I have a table called people but fill it full of companies.
> That is wrong. Consistency is extremely important to the maintenance of
> any project and any code base.
I disagree here - I think renaming is simply a useless act and I'm firm
with magnus here that playing this game will hardly gain us much but
having to deal with annoyances here and there :-(
>
> Your suggest opens the doors for a horrible pile of spaghetti over the
> years. Consider... we have developers in contributors, sponsors in
> donors, resources in links on and on and on.
>
> It is a mistake, flat out.
>
>>
>> For example, hosting pages are served by professional.php. Techdocs are
>> served by communitydocs.php. That is *intended*.
>>
>
> If it is intended it is a mistake. Techdocs should be served by techdocs
> and now my point above is made.
why ? I don't see the point in renaming files for no real purpose (other
than "it looks nicer to the five odd people browsing the source" and
having to deal with annoyances as a result)
Stefan
