SourceForge now is down for the 6th day. My impression is they simply don't care about the open source project hosting any longer at all.

I suggest we switch our github mirror to be the official repository (I just pushed two commits there, the mirror script can't mirror anything anyway with the source down...): https://github.com/liballeg

If everyone agrees, and if SF ever comes back up again, we can disable the git repository on SF. Website and bug tracker are easily moved over to github as well I think.

I don't know about mailing list and downloads - if github can't do those we might want to find alternatives for those as well.

I agree with every point.

Maybe if enough groups ask nicely GitHub will integrate mailing lists. In the meantime another solution is probably needed... Though a Web forum would probably suffice. There is always the development forum here as a fallback...

I can probably set up mailman or something on my email server. And if no-one else offers, I can slap the website up on my web server.

Website is back up now: http://liballeg.org/

It's now a github.io page - I simply committed the output of the allegrowww2 repository into github's website repository: https://github.com/liballeg/liballeg.github.io

In theory that means to update the website, we'd have to first edit files in allegrowww2, run make, then commit the result. However I think right now would be a good time for someone to step up and create a new simple website, maybe something integrated in github so it can be easily updated from there

As in a new new website?

I also noticed the allegro5.org domain name was in use (somewhere, earlier). Is that you? What's the intended purpose/relationship between the each of the domain names?

liballeg.org is the only official domain. allegro5.org I think was given to me by trentg a few years ago and I decided to keep it, but no plans to do anything with it. There also was talk about changing versioning to Allegro 6, 7, 8... instead of 5.2, 5.3, 5.4... so then it would be worthless anyway.

And yes, I think we agreed that we want a new design. And half of the current content is outdated (if we want download locations for all 3.9.x WIPs, that really can be a wiki page instead, same as a collection of horrible logo attempts or the "humor" section...). So I think basically start a new website from scratch

The current one is both really nice to edit (markdown files stored in git, we want to keep that) but also really hard (nobody ever remembers how to get the html updated once a markdown change gets committed). So that's why I think we should see if there's a good way to have github automate that task.

I looks like SF is trying to reduce expenses. The relatively popular audio editor Audacity's home page has been down for weeks now, while TortoiseSVN's is still up. If it was only those two projects, I'd guess the difference is caused by SF wanting to draw in young future professional programmers. If that's the case, Allegro is probably not even a blip on the radar compared to TortoiseSVN

I suggested this move months ago, so I'm all in favor. Sad, but true, Sourceforge has jumped the shark. Well, at least, now we can focus on improving the web site.

SF jumped the shark years ago. It's just been doing more jumping.

It just wasn't really worth the effort to switch away before.

GitHub uses Jekyll, which if you figure out how to use it, Markdown all the way, and the build process happens on GitHub!

TortoiseSVN is obsolete since SVN is obsolete. Certainly this not a popularity contest. It's probably just an unprofessional downsizing and/or conscious suicide attempt. SourceForge has always been a terrible host. Most people are just embarrassingly lazy and careless.

Well, to be fair, SourceForge was a great host originally (15 or so years ago). They were completely open source and gave you free hosting and even shell access - something completely unheard of at that point. But yes, about 10 years ago they started going downhill.

It got a little too popular and they were struggling. things were still pretty good, but then they got bought out iirc. THEN it went to shit.

It was Obama.

What are you talking about? He wasn't even a US citizen back then

I tried out github-jekyll: http://liballeg.org/allegro5

How it works s this. The website's source code is here: https://github.com/liballeg/allegro5/tree/gh-pages

Whenever someone pushes a change, github will re-run Jekyll to create the website - so very easy updating. This would be the main advantage over our current solution.

Jekyll uses markdown just like our custom website did, so I could simply re-use our old news items. Rebuilding the entire site should be a matter of 1 or 2 hours if we pick Jekyll - most of the enhancements over markdown our custom site has exist in a similar but different form in Jekyll as well.

We would of course keep our own system for the documentation generation.

Hey, it should be noted that Github is full of social-justice warriors now. So if the documentation contains anything they can construe as offensive, they may take it down.

WebMConverter has just been taken down for having the word "retard" in the description.

https://archive.is/XiTS9

Here, Github takes down a completely satirical programming language as well as all forks.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/12/14/1618239/github-takes-down-satirical-c-plus-equality-language?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed

Here people argue for banning contributors whose political beliefs on personal twitter accounts aren't politically correct. (This appears to be a common tactic... sifting through people's social media to find things to be outraged by.) Also, if you want to have an insane amount of laughter, definitely read a few pages of this discussion. It makes our religious wars on Allegro look like polite conversation.

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

Here they are removing an amazing rug of "United Meritocracy of Github" because social justice warriors said that hiring based on merit is unfair to people who have less than ideal upbringings. That's right. Hiring based on skill is unfair to people who suck at their job.

http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug

I'm all for git, but if you choose github, make sure you understand the feel-good fluffy atmosphere you're subscribing to. Because apparently even your contributors personal lives can subject the project to lynch mobbing.

If github pulls anything of the sort on us, we'll just move on. Just need to keep a regular backup of the issues . The SJW plague is partly omnipresent, dealing with it is just the price of operating on the modern internet.

It's unfortunately not just Github. Looks like nowadays fundamentalism has become wide spread on all sides of the political spectrum. And the group you're talking about (because I don't know if you can even call them "feminists") is on the move. They're attacking gaming, FLOSS development, atheism, movies, etc, etc. Companies like Github or Atlassian are under tons of pressure from them, and will probably keep on caving in until a strong enough countermovement arises. We're not safe anywhere, but that's life for you.

Back on topic, Jekyll seems like a cool solution. So let's use that for now. I wish I had time to contribute.

Edit: Siegelord and I must be in telepathy, he said just what I meant, but in a shorter way.

Anyway, SF is back up...

{"name":"609642","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/5\/654905ffe71e5583b65268d81ba69976.jpg","w":250,"h":250,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/5\/654905ffe71e5583b65268d81ba69976"}

GitHub is not the enemy in that debate per se. As a for profit company they're somewhat at the mercy of the population. They can always choose not to bow to the whims of SJWs, but if that means their business will fail because a significant population will stop doing business with them then they have little choice. They're a victim of people siding with the SJWs instead of using their brains and standing up to the harassment and up for free thinking, etc. Freedom in speech, beliefs, and thinking means that people must be free to form bad ideas as well as good ones. Attempting to harm people for their ideas is wrong, even if their ideas are bad. They should only be judged for their actions, and judgements should be proportional to the actual real harm of those actions (i.e., offending people doesn't hurt them, and if the actions of one indirectly provoke others to do real harm that should not be held against the one whose actions themselves did no harm). We really just need people to stand up to the SJWs. Stop trying to be such a white knight for the dark forces and think about who YOUR actions may hurt. If we all did this then such anti-freedom campaigns would be entirely ineffective and laughable instead of being tragic for the individuals targeted.

I'd never though the day would come, but now I find myself in full agreement with what bambams is saying. Three cheers for freedom of thought and expression!

In the past, George Takei (and his partner Brad Takei even more so) has been a major source of the types of materials that cause people to at and think this way. The two of them have represented a prominent voice of social activism.

But I've noticed a slow change of tenor on George's feed, and this post recently appeared on George Takei's Facebook feed few days ago. I take it as a sign that tides are changing, and people are starting to wake up the reality that these tactics can be harmful and lead to abusive results.

Personally, I want to know how it all started and what caused this trend.

In the same vein, this is satire on how for instance feminists are looking for sexism everywhere (it's a bald guy complaining that bald people in movies are always villains). It's funny

Uhhh... Mark. What happened to the image? It was there a few hours ago.

Eewps. I must have messed up the link on the edit. It's fixed now.

I put the image in a link because I didn't want it filling up the whole thread real estate - this thread is about Sourceforge after all.

SJW thought police can eat a d*ck for all I care. I'm sure they'd see that statement through gay-bashing or sexist colored glasses, depending on their mental baggage.

I'm just sad that it feels like freedom of debate has stopped increasing and has actually begun to retract the last 5 years. I really thought... stupidly... That my peers would bring in a new age of freedom and not repeat the stupidity of our parents.

I mean ffs when I grew up parents were actually afraid of teenagers roaming the streets, video games caused violence, and that the end of times where near as the crime kept increasing in the 90s. And here we are, the world is sill ticking, and my peers haven't learned anything.

Apparently it's all up for sale now - I wonder what will become of SF.net?
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/dhi-group-plans-to-sell-off-slashdot-and-sourceforge/
Pete

Brilliant move, if you ask me.

Ugh. Social justice warriors are a big part of the reason I hate millennials. Being a millennial myself, that's not a nice thing to have to say, but it is what it is. The SJWs claim to be fighting for equality and everything else, all the while talking down to or outright attacking anyone who doesn't agree with their warped worldview. Hypocrites of the worst kind, and to put it bluntly, it pisses me off.

I think the biggest problem though comes down to the fact that the Internet gave everyone a voice. As we're seeing now, that wasn't the great win for freedom of expression that we all thought it would be...

If github actually ends up being a problem, there are plenty of other git systems.

https://about.gitlab.com/
http://gogs.io/

But I'm not saying I've vetted them. It's not likely we'd have a problem with Github, but their heavy-handedness should be noted.

Oh, and I just realized BitBucket supports Git.

[edit]

HOLY. GOD.

Github has adopted the Open Code of Conduct (as written by feminists):

https://github.com/blog/2039-adopting-the-open-code-of-conduct

http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/

I'm.... I'm speechless.

Harassment now includes:

[edit 2]

I just realized their Open Code of Conduct site? It... doesn't have any information about the group at all. It's like a fake website. There's no people listed behind it, no parent organization. It's literally nothing but the contract, blog where people brag about joining it, and a member list... there's no "who wrote it" "who manages it" nothing.

http://todogroup.org/

That's super sketchy.

Those SJW bed wetters better stay off Facebook, or they'll risk getting followed by people on the Internet. The horror!

It'll work out in the end. *hugs Chris*

My thoughts, too.

I can tell what that girl's using, and I can see why she would need to (Is she anyone in particular?)

Anyway, this'll probably cheer you up, Chris

It's fantastic for a woman to get what's coming to her, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the police officer had any right to detain her anyway. She might well have had the right to go, but evidently she had no idea what her actual rights were, and the police officer surely knew that. I don't consider that a cheery video.

I don't see how he couldn't have a justifiable reason to detain her for at least questioning. Refusing to follow an officer's instructions to such a belligerent extent is completely stupid. Hopefully she got to experience being an "imprisoned inhabitant" long enough to learn a little about the contemporary United States.

It's a cheery video because it made me laugh. Screaming rape because you're being arrested? Good luck with that

Of course he does. The ability to detain people at the scene of a crime is an essential requirement for police to be able to do their job.

He had definite reason for believing that she had no fixed address and could probably not be found at a later point if needed so he definitely couldn't just let her go, which meant he had to take her with him. If she had simply done as instructed, she wouldn't have been restrained, and she would have been free to go once she'd been questioned.

One of the costs of living in a lawful society is that we must sometimes experience some inconvenience to ensure that laws can actually be enforced. Complying with instructions from law enforcement is one of those inconveniences. Police don't have the luxury of knowing in advance who is the guilty party so they sometimes have to detain the innocent to ensure that the guilty party doesn't go free.

What's that got to do with anything? He didn't abuse her in any way, and he can't be expected to just let her go on her way simply because she has no idea of how the country she lives in works.

There are a lot of bad cops out there, and they need to be weeded out. This guy isn't one of them though. He was remarkably respectful (though 'miss' would have been a more appropriate term than 'young lady') and patient with her, never raising his voice or swearing at her, even when she was being abusive. It doesn't seem like he used excessive force to restrain her either, as it sounds like she's yelling in anger ans not screaming in pain (and she's definitely not being choked).

The saddest thing about this video is how stupid and naive people can be. She's accusing him of not knowing the laws of his country while citing an article of government that was replaced over 200 years ago. And all that the article actually says is that you're free to cross state borders and that whichever state you're in, you have all the rights granted by that state. It says nothing about not having to obey the laws of any state. The article even states that if you commit a crime in one state and then move to another state, you can be extradited back to the state in which the crime was committed, which means that you obviously can't be free from the laws.

So yeah, I laughed, because she got exactly what she deserved.

What crime? Driving without a license or insurance isn't a crime that involves the arrest of everyone present. It appears to be a misdemeanor offense in most states, resulting in a few hundred dollar fine and potentially a short period in jail. It does not involve the passengers of the vehicle in any way.

As far as I know, those were the only charges against the driver (I'm not sure the video really went into detail). The police officer can say he's "investigating" all he wants to, but that doesn't give him the right to hold you without cause. If it did then the police could literally stop anybody without cause and hold them just to entertain themselves. He had no reason to believe she had committed a crime (he even said so in the video). He confirmed that she was not under arrest. In reality, she probably did have the right to leave, but failed to assert her rights probably because she didn't know them. The police regularly take advantage of this and coerce cooperation where none is required. Often to the detriment of the subjects involved. Anything you say or do can be twisted as the police, prosecutor, and judge see fit. If they can convince a judge or jury that you've committed a crime then you can be punished, even if you're completely innocent.

I could of course be wrong, I'm not a lawyer, but neither are you. I've often seen this situation go differently in videos. Paraphrasing:

"Why did you stop me?"
"Please step out of the vehicle."
"No."
"Why won't you step out of the vehicle? I just want to talk to you."
"You can talk to me right here."
"I don't know if you have any weapons on you. I just want to make sure you're not going to shoot me."
"Am I under arrest?"
"No."
"Then I must be free to leave."
"No, you're not free to leave. I'm not done with you yet. Please step out of the vehicle so that I know you're not carrying any weapons."
"I do not wish to step out of my vehicle. Why do you want me to step out of my vehicle? Am I under arrest?"
"Not yet."
"So then can I leave?"
etc etc etc etc

Usually after about 15 minutes of the cop intimidating the occupant and failing to coerce the surrender of rights they will give up, make a very unprofessional threat ("DON'T EVER LET ME CATCH YOU AGAIN MOTHERFUCKER OR ELSE!"), and leave. I've seen videos where the cop blatantly peels out because he's so pissed off that a law-abiding citizen upheld his own rights. Those rights exist to protect us. Very intelligent people formulated these laws based on lessons learned throughout history. For us to just throw all of that away out of ignorance is reprehensible.

He had no reason to find her later because as far as he knew she had not committed a crime.

That's a very reckless attitude towards law enforcement. It is typical of law abiding citizens. Just do as you're told and this won't happen to you! That's not true. Legal experts advise you to not cooperate with law enforcement when possible. Which is to say, refuse to talk to them, refuse to consent to searches, etc. It's in your best interest. We like to think that the police are out there protecting innocent civilians from hardened criminals, but really they're just a government run gang with an objective of collecting funds (i.e., fines, bail, etc.) and patting their egos.

You only have to comply when the law says so. If a police officer asks you to do something you can probably refuse. If they communicate that you must do something then it probably depends on context whether you have to comply or not (often they lie, or don't actually understand the law themselves). Often they try to intimidate people into surrendering rights that they don't know they have. That is the usual story. Google or search YouTube for videos of people asserting their rights. You'd be surprised. The police get very irate, screaming, yelling, cussing, making violent gestures, etc. Ultimately they can't do shit and have to let the person go. Those rights exist to protect you from the police. There's nothing else built into the system to do that. If you surrender your rights then you're defenseless.

It is not the job of police to decide guilt or innocence. That is the job of a judge or justice of the peace (or jury). The police only exist to enforce the law when justified. If somebody is threatening the public it is the job of the police to stop them. Their guilt is determined at a later date during a fair trial. Until then it is assumed that they are innocent. They still must be stopped if there's reason to believe that they have broken the law or are a threat to the public, but that's where the police role ends.

It's easy to say that when you're sitting behind a computer screen. It's a whole other matter when you're the one being slammed to the ground. I think you'd quickly jump the fence if that happened to you. Consider this: you're completely innocent, you haven't done anything wrong, but some hot headed cop is convinced that you have and is harassing you. Getting in your face, yelling at you, making threats and coercing you to admit wrongdoing. At the first opportunity he physically grabs you and slams you hard to the ground asserting that you were resisting. Who knows, maybe it's even a dirty cop, and if you comply he'll plant drugs on you and arrest you just to meet his quota for the month. Is that the kind of risk you'd like to take? You'd certainly like to think that it's a rare occurrence, but I think that you'd be surprised just how often the police will bend or break the rules to harm people that they believe, in their darkened perception of human-kind, have done wrong. Granted a dirty cop has a lot of opportunity to exploit an uncooperative subject as well, but every right you surrender makes it that much easier for them to hurt you, good or bad. They might even be a well intentioned person, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. That doesn't guarantee that they don't hurt innocent people.

What you describe (intimidation and abuse) are not where the bar sits between "good" cops and "bad" cops. Good cops understand the purpose of the legal system, understand that people are innocent until proven guilty, and don't go out of their way to harm people. If you assume that everybody is guilty and treat them as such then you'll be doing a lot more harm to innocent people than to guilty ones.

The really sad thing is that the police actually don't know the law as well as you'd think. They aren't really required to. For the most part, it's just a day job for them. The requirements for becoming a cop are not very high. Obviously there are some physical requirements depending on the department, albeit I'm sure every one of us has seen a severely overweight cop so they're not that high... They aren't lawyers. They don't go to school for 7 years to learn the laws. They learn the very basics, and are more or less trained to target specific things and/or operate on instinct. If they arrest you wrongly they aren't going to really be harmed in any way. The court will release you and that will be the end of it. Police regularly misrepresent rights and lack thereof when attempting to coerce a subject into admitting or casting suspicion of wrongdoing. For the most part they don't actually care about people or society: they care about their job, their ego, and their pay cheque.

Just because this girl was ignorant and quite likely stupid doesn't mean that she deserves to be harassed nor abused by law enforcement. If she had committed an actual crime (and maybe I'm forgetting something here) then at least you could argue that she got what was coming to her. Merely being ignorant is not guilty. If it were we'd all be guilty because I doubt too many of us have studied the letter of the law in intricate detail.

Some people need to be reminded that the police have the right and ability to detain without arresting you for whatever reason they deem necessary. This includes being put in a cell for like 24+ hours without being charged. Acting suspicious and being very uncooperative (ie: interfering with an officer or worse obstruction) is explicitly a reason to be detained longer.

Yeah... I don't see the big deal. Just because you aren't committing a huge crime, doesn't mean you're not acting suspicious and may be in the middle of committing one.

Imagine pulling someone over with an expired license, and letting them go, only to find out an hour later they killed 5 people.

I'm all for holding cops accountable, but let's not assume every civilian is some special snowflake.

I'm not sure exactly on the rules for detaining you, but regardless they cannot force your cooperation. They may be able to detain you, but if they are not detaining you and they are not actually investigating a crime then they have to let you go.

Sitting in a car, even ranting about rights that you don't have, isn't actually interfering with an officer if he doesn't have cause to remove you from the vehicle. Certainly he can argue that it was, and arrest you regardless, but you're going to be let free unless he can convince a judge or justice of it. In this case I suspect that the judge would inform the girl that she does in fact have to abide by state laws before releasing her.

I don't think any of us can really say we know the letter of the law here. I'm not even trying to assert what she could or could not do. I'm simply defending our rights to refuse to cooperate, and refuting the position that you must do whatever police say and deserve whatever you get if you don't. That's a very dangerous line of thinking.

Append:

It doesn't mean they are either, and in a free country the government should not be holding you just in case.

That's unfortunately a risk that you have to take if you want to have a free country. Regardless you can't actually prevent somebody from killing 5 people, nor can you guarantee that you'll catch them after the fact. It's impossible. To defend a breach of a person's rights on the grounds that they might be guilty is ignorant.

Let's instead imagine that said person has a suicidal son at home. They were on their way home and would have gotten there in time, but unfortunately the police pulled them over for a malfunctioning tail light and decided to detain them just in case they were planning a serial murder spree later that day. The poor soul would have been home in time to stop their son from killing themselves, but instead it happens.

You can come up with any number of hypothetical situations. None of them matters. If there's no reason to believe that a subject has murdered 5 people then there's no reason to treat them like they had. There's no reason to believe that treating like they had will necessarily reveal the crime anyway. And in the much more likely scenario that the person is innocent their rights will have been violated for nothing, and they will have been subjected to harassment and frightened for nothing. Essentially an innocent person would be harmed (which I think you'd agree should be criminal).

Let's do [assume every civilian is [innocent] until we have good reason to doubt it] because the alternative is far worse. Unless you actually believe that most people deserve to be punished, in which case why even pretend to have a functioning society? We might as well just nuke the planet and kill off the entire human race (and all of the other life because we're horrible people anyway and/or because we all share the same lineage and naturally they're evil too).

At first, she refused to get out of the car. The cop mentioned he needed her to do so in order to tow the car. Her refusal to comply with his demands in a reasonably timely manner does constitute delaying him. And it is suspicious as hell to be so verbally aggressive, warranting a slight delay in order to question her. His application of pain compliance is obviously due to her extreme uncooperativeness.

Seriously. I'm not 18 anymore. I don't think every authority figure is out to get me.

1) It's very suspicious when someone snaps. It can be nothing--maybe they're having a bad day--but it can also mean they're raging on pills, drunk, or high off drowning babies.

2) Cops are legally allowed to detain people without reason for up to 48-hours in the USA.

Some times it's abused. I have no statistics on how much, and I'm reluctant to think everyone stopped or frisked is some magical innocent peter pan abused by the cold evil police force.

I care about cops blowing people's brains out, and covering up evidence. I do not care about cops stopping people for five minutes of their time in order to keep us safe.

@raynebc:

Fair enough. I don't think it was obvious to me at first why he wanted to tow the car... Now that I've looked a bit more into it I'm not surprised she was arrested. That admitted, I still disagree with blindly cooperating with police.

In this case though, I'm assuming if she had cooperated she would have been let go. I'm not entirely convinced that it's true, but then again Google suggests that there is an extremist group identifying as the woman in the OP did. The couple apparently claim it to be a religious movement in their defense. Which may suggest it's some kind of cult... Oh joy. I digress. That doesn't seem relevant to the charges.

I'm not sure though. It appears in court like they're both defending themselves against the same crimes. The resisting I can understand, but the driving an unlicensed and uninsured vehicle seems should only apply to the driver caught.

Append:

This appears credible:

That's all I'm trying to argue in favor of.

I read recently that you don't actually require a drivers license in the US. The Police think you do, and so does the government, but the courts have ruled on a few occasions that its personal property and some law from way back when makes it so you don't need a license to operate your own personal equipment (ie: not for commercial uses). Not sure of the details though.

Here are examples of the real thing:

Obviously most examples you'll find are American. And Americans do tend to have more rights because other countries tend to be more willing to surrender rights to politicians. Albeit, since 9/11 Americans have more or less been willing to surrender all of their rights too. Thanks to a few smart and/or stubborn people they haven't lost all of their rights yet. Unfortunately, for those of us not in the USA these examples don't really help us much. On the plus side, for those of us not in the USA, we're probably slightly less likely to be harassed by law enforcement (with exceptions). I've been pulled over approximately 12 times, most of those for no good reason, mostly when I was younger. I was pulled over far more often than anybody else I know. One police officer, who was unmarked when he followed me home, admitted to my father that he "profiled" me because of how I looked (i.e., I was wearing a hooded sweatshirt at the time). I've also once been pulled in by border services and had my car, myself, and my passengers all searched.

Not to de-rail your train wreck here

but what about alleg.sourceforge.net? That's kind of my goto page but now it's out of date. Suggest while its up we keep it up to date? Or point it to liballeg.org?

It can probably be pointed somewhere else.

I managed to get http://alleg.sourceforge.net/ itself to point to liballeg.org, but I don't know how to get the subpages to do something like that...

I'd look into it, but i can't access the sf project's admin stuff I assume there is some setting somewhere that lets you point alleg.sourceforge.net to another domain entirely. could be wrong... also you can set the project to point to another domain rather than alleg.sf.net afaik. but that doesn't help with existing links.

I did not find anything of the sort except what was documented here: http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/Project%20Web%20Services/

Ugh. That makes it pretty much the most tedious thing ever. If theres no way to get them to change the dns to be a cname to the new site, or play with rewrites, or other .htaccess stuff, then the only option is to somehow get all pages to redirect...

There is an .htaccess file, actually. I don't know what needs to be done for it, however.

you might be able to do:

Redirect 301 / http://example.com/

Or use mod_rewrite:

Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine On
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://example.com/$1 [R=301]

Or something like that. But I somewhat doubt they have mod_rewrite enabled for htaccess files. can't hurt to try.

Alright, I've added +FollowSymLinks and RedirectMatch 301 (.*)$ http://liballeg.org$1 and it seems to redirect pretty well now.

! uBlock Origin is blocking sourceforge because "badware risks". hahaha.

Just checked an old url, it 404's: http://alleg.sf.net/a5docs/refman/events.html#allegro_event_display_expose

Ah yes... documentation. That needs to be given some thought, hah. I'll probably move it to the website as well.

Oh, I wanted to add the website last week to the cronjob but then ran out of time - will try and do it today. I'll simply commit the html output to the github.io repository (into a folder a5docs/refman).

[edit:]

Done, any changes to the documentation should get propagated now. Should we also put the PDF into git.io? It gets generated but it feels wrong putting a large binary file in git, so waiting for someone to confirm it's ok

So this 'refman' directory gave me a bit of a headache yesterday. In the old website, it was a symlink to a5docs/trunk. github.io doesn't seem to support .htaccess or symlinks, so we can't do that. I think it's probably best to send the new documentation to a5docs/trunk and change the links to point there.

Not sure what to do about the PDF, as it kind of changes very often . Perhaps the PDF we should put on gna.org?