Bug 244924

Summary:	Use wiki forward instead of tinyurl
Product:	[Retired] Fedora Documentation	Reporter:	Till Maas <opensource>
Component:	release-notes	Assignee:	Release Notes Tracker <relnotes>
Status:	CLOSED CANTFIX	QA Contact:	Karsten Wade <kwade>
Severity:	urgent	Docs Contact:
Priority:	urgent
Version:	devel	CC:	opensource
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-10-08 15:48:00 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	151189

Description Till Maas 2007-06-19 21:15:11 UTC

I noticed that in the release notes a URL to a bugzilla page is obfuscated with
tinyurl. Imho it would be better to use a page on the wiki, that redirects users
to the bugzilla page. I created an example page at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TillMaas/ForwardTest

You can see the used code, here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TillMaas/ForwardTest?action=edit&editor=text

So if you like this idea, you only need to use above code on a well selected
page in the wiki, e.g.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/BugillaFeedbackForm

Comment 1 Karsten Wade 2007-06-20 23:35:22 UTC

Thanks for the idea; we just began exploring the #REFRESH directive, which does
an  actual <meta http-equiv="refresh"...>.

I definitely see advantages in this approach:

* Don't have to modify the URL each release (as we do in getting a new tinyurl)
* Memorable URL
* Relies upon tool that aren't likely to break or change in behavior

However, I'm curious what made you think about this in the first place?  That
is, you refer to obfuscation, which has a negative connotation -- as if we are
intentionally trying to hide something.  Or is it just that tinyurl.com links
are risky because you don't know where they go, even if you trust the source
that wrote them?

Comment 2 Till Maas 2007-06-24 12:20:10 UTC

(In reply to comment #1)

> However, I'm curious what made you think about this in the first place?  That
> is, you refer to obfuscation, which has a negative connotation -- as if we are
> intentionally trying to hide something.  Or is it just that tinyurl.com links
> are risky because you don't know where they go, even if you trust the source
> that wrote them?

I used obfuscation because one cannot see what is behind the tinurl link or
whether or not one already knows this. E.g. when there would be instead a link
to bugzilla I would know, what I can expect from the link and do not need to
follow it. Also I get this information, when I am offline while reading the
release notes. Additionally I saw the advantages of using the wiki or some other
 method and imho using tinyurl in a the release notes looks not very professional.

Comment 3 Till Maas 2008-10-08 15:48:00 UTC

Mediawiki does not support this, therefore it needs to be solved some other way or kept as it is.