You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 10 Next »

Traditionally, netbeans.org is the primary user facing site of the NetBeans project.

In addition, there's wiki.netbeans.org with information more relevant to developers of NetBeans than its users, though there's some overlap, e.g., wiki.netbeans.org includes the NetBeans User FAQ wiki.netbeans.org/NetBeansUserFAQ.

In Apache, there's in principle two sites as well, one for users and one for developers:

  • xxx.org (e.g., netbeans.org for NetBeans users)
  • xxx.apache.org (e.g., netbeans.apache.org for NetBeans developers)

However, some Apache projects redirect from the one to the other, while other Apache projects keep these sites separate. At least, we must have netbeans.apache.org – and we must decide whether we want netbeans.org or not (and if not somehow handle redirects and so on or some other solution).

Arguments for only having netbeans.apache.org (and somehow redirecting or otherwise from netbeans.org to netbeans.apache.org):

  • We cannot afford to split the community. All users/developers should be using netbeans.apache.org as primary point of entry. As now, there should be an area for IDE and one for the Platform. Having both will allow users to possible explore new things they else never would see. (Bernd)

Arguments for  keeping netbeans.org separate from netbeans.apache.org:

  • Losing the netbeans.org domain for the primary user facing links would be a mistake in my opinion, given the huge number of inbound links out there (yes, I know we can redirect, but it doesn't mean we should).  Having a site focused purely on development of the IDE and platform at netbeans.apache.org as required doesn't mean we'd split the community.  Lots of organisations use multiple sub-domains / domains for different purposes - the key is to integrate the layout/designso that people can easily find what they're looking for, with header links back-and-forth, etc.  OpenOffice roughly has this approach by the look of it. (Neil)

 

 

 

 

  • No labels