Skip to content

Conversation

@patrickbkr
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@coke coke merged commit c7e3169 into Raku:main Nov 10, 2025
3 checks passed
@coke
Copy link
Contributor

coke commented Nov 10, 2025

Thanks!

@librasteve
Copy link
Contributor

librasteve commented Nov 10, 2025

guys … I am a bit unhappy with this commit

why?

I think we (the raku community) suffer from confusion and balkanisation of our various websites

I did my best to showcase rakubrew on raku.org since I think it is the most reliable installation tool we have

others convinced me to water this down (eg with homebrew and macports) … but by and large I think we made a big step to streamline with the new raku.org, leading with rakubrew

same story with rakudo … that’s our best compiler!

I was aiming to put us in train to retire some of our various other website portfolio, such as

  • rakubrew.org … since this is our lead installer on raku.org, let’s tune the content on raku org directly and then we can sunset the rakubrew.org site (maybe redirect that url to a raku.org landing page)
  • rakudo.org … since this is our lead compiler, ditto that - but more work to do here, specifically I think we need a widget or two on raku.org to reflect the latest releases

that’s why almost all of the content from rakubrew.org was copied verbatim to the new site … I felt that the long tail could be cut where I cut it with a link to the github for the remaining fine grain stuff

hmmph

@coke
Copy link
Contributor

coke commented Nov 10, 2025

This seemed like a trivial change to me that improved the state of the link; Didn’t realize anyone would find it controversial, apologies. Feel free to revert it

@librasteve
Copy link
Contributor

librasteve commented Nov 11, 2025

@coke, @patrickbkr - sorry, I went off the deep end there a bit. Please accept my apology. If it's OK with you two, I would like to use this conversation thread to agree the next steps.

Hopefully, in between my ranting, you can discern the underlying proposal:

  1. Make a new raku.org site and get it live [ok]
  2. Decide the installation options to showcase and those to downplay [ok, as part of the various inputs and reviews]
  3. Decide if it is possible and desirable to integrate the other sites content (specifically rakubrew.org and rakudo.org) into raku.org [now]

So, my question to you both is:

  • do you think that the online presence of Raku would benefit from unifying rakubrew.org and/or rakudo.org into raku.org?

The benefits are:

  • a single, consistent look and feel to all these raku sites
  • tacit acknowledgement that rakudo (star) is the only game in town and avoidance of some complexity in the story
  • we can retire the other sites and save some time and effort in keeping them current
  • in the case of rakudo.org, a lot of very marginal installation options are listed and the integration process would give is a chance to clean out this mess

The pain is:

  • we should port the rakudo release tracker widgets and source code download functions to the raku.org stack (which I am happy to do as soon as I get down some of the open issues on the list such as url stubs and config of defaults)

What do you think?

PS. I won't worry about reverting this change for now since what we do to that depends on the outcome of this discussion.
PPS. Please do invite others to join this discussion if you think that is appropriate - we could even do a Raku Problem Solving to involve the whole community...

@coke
Copy link
Contributor

coke commented Nov 14, 2025

My very short take: I think it makes sense to have a simple unified view on raku.org – but I think we still need the separate sites to house details.

@librasteve
Copy link
Contributor

Appreciate the feedback!

@librasteve
Copy link
Contributor

I put all the above in a problem solving ... hopefully that will help us navigate

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants