Snapcraft.io needs updating.
did you consider looking around in this forum a bit before posting a 6 month old blogpost ?
the fedora packages are directly handled in the release thread by @Conan_Kudo :
and 2.27 on arch is in good progess as mentioned in:
(makes me notice that @zyga-snapd is a big fan of starting new topics with “hey” )
Snapcraft.io is horrifically out of date, which gives a bad impression of the state of things.
Good to see they are actually more up-to-date than I thought. But Snapcraft.io really does need updating.
I would personally like to remove most of the content in
snapcraft.io and move it here into the forum, until
snapcraft.io itself is more about content that remains true for longer and doesn’t need so much attention. That’s not quite a shared view yet, so we need to talk more about it indeed.
Why don’t we just open-source Snapcraft.io on GitHub and update it that way?
do you mean like:
(which is the upstream of snapcraft.io)
i moved this to the “doc” category since it developed into discussion about snapcraft.io
Well, then, we just update that!
@G.S.1 Any takers for long term maintenance of it?
I would argue that the maintainers of the respective aspects need to maintain it. For example, I update the Fedora information on the website, so maintainers for the distributions should be doing the same.
The forum is inappropriate for almost everything that’s actually in the website, as that’s intended to be a relatively consistent reference. In my view, using the forum like a reference is dangerous because it’s too dynamic.
@Conan_Kudo It’s only as dynamic as you want it to be. I’d encourage you to open a topic here in the forum such as “Installing on Fedora”, and maintaining it appropriately with the top message remaining right over time. People can comment under it, and you can both comment and update the top message.
This will likely be more visible, more interactive, more interconnected to other conversations, and more useful in general as a consequence.
That said, your help is and will continue to be appreciated in whatever form you prefer to offer it.
URLs can and will change, topics merged/split, posts edited without historical reference, and so on.
It was fine when we moved from mailing lists to the forum, but wiping out relatively static-ish content is a bad idea.
I don’t understand how any of that invalidates the point I just made or make the alternative more interesting. The conversation here is in topic 1761… that identifier won’t change no matter how much we talk under this topic, or even whether the summary changes.
Have a look at the content in #doc for some inspiration. We have links for those in many conversations here and outside the forum, and it’s been working pretty well so far.