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
You can see the used code, here:
So if you like this idea, you only need to use above code on a well selected
page in the wiki, e.g.
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?
(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.
Mediawiki does not support this, therefore it needs to be solved some other way or kept as it is.