Small Website Suggestions.

Developer
Dec 8, 2010 at 6:25 AM

Here are a few small suggestions after looking over the new website (great work btw!):

  • There is no title on the main page - probably set to something like "Bellevue Church Management System"
  • The Testimonials link on the main page at the bottom is to tesimonials - thus bringing up a 404.
  • I'd recommend making monthly or bi-monthly "stable" builds of bvcms rather than pointing directly to the source code...for two reasons, first it feels a little overwhelming to be pointed directly to the bleeding-edge code directory and secondly, you aren't included in certain aspects of codeplex's search results if you don't have any releases available for download.
  • On Features Page:
    • "Plus, we make it the contribution entry process fast and easy." - "it" should be removed.
    • "important and essential" - somewhat redundant, perhaps "intuitive and essential"?
  • On FAQs Page:
    • Should the ASP.NET platform be changed to 4? It is currently listed as 3.5
  • On Contact Page:
    • The link to Testimonials on this page has .php appended resulting in a 404 error.
  • Either within the Documentation or perhaps as the link for Developers it would be great to have a wiki or other documentation on how to configure, install, deploy, develop, etc. with bvcms.

Wow. bvcms is really looking like it is ready for the big-time!

In Christ,

Dave.

Coordinator
Dec 8, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Hi Dave,

Thank you very much for catching those errors. I have most of them fixed. The title I'll have to wait until I publish next.

Regarding the development and deployment process, all those topics are in the developers blog. Probably need a menu to point those posts. I just did not want to mix the developer docs with the docs for users.

Also on the builds for bvcms, I tried that for a while and they get so old and it becomes a burden to try to keep that up to date. I want people to download the latest build. The only times I push to CodePlex is when I publish the build to production so the latest on CodePlex matches the current production. Furthermore, CodePlex does not have an easy way to create a download. And I don't want to release the binary builds anyway since those have configuration issues that need to be thought through before deployment anyway. Finally, I would like to see some evidence that CodePlex search results are impacted by the lack of a release and whether that really prevents people from finding us.

 

Thanks again!

Developer
Dec 12, 2010 at 5:22 AM

David,

   My pleasure! Concerning the builds - I don't think you have to do a "build" per say - just place all the current source files in a zip and add it as a "build" - if you gave me permissions I'd be happy to undertake this task. Its just a "downloadable" that people can use to get up and running on their own - it helps demonstrate the difference between projects that are still in formative stages and those ready for use.

   Concerning evidence for whether not having a build makes a project harder to find on CodePlex:

1. Go to www.codeplex.com

2. Choose Project Directory

3. Choose "Sort by Ratings"

    No one browsing will now discover us - b/c we won't appear until after all the other results - b/c we have no ratings, since ratings can only be applied to downloadables. Granted, it may not be huge...and likely people are going to type something else in that will bring us up...but developers who are browsing projects to find something to work on, not necessarily knowing what - will never see us b/c we are so far down the list. :)

Dave.

Coordinator
Dec 12, 2010 at 5:41 AM

I see what you mean by the Ratings. I agree that most are not going to search that way. I'll be glad to give you permissions to download the zip and re-upload it for a release. Just need to clearly indicate that the latest production source is at the tip of the source code.

Mecurial is a distributed source code control system. The entire repository is kept on the local machine which is where I commit to. I don't push the accumulated commits until I do a production release. That is why the tip of the changesets always represents the production code, in theory anyway.

So I would hate for someone to download a release that was not the latest and may in fact have bugs that have been since fixed. So my two biggest problems with the whole release thing is that it is a pain to have to download the source, then reupload it to make a release. Seems cumbersome. Why couldn't they just allow you to checkmark a change set and identify it as the release.