Signed-off-by: Vlad-Stefan Harbuz <vlad@vladh.net>
---
 index.html | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index 8af16c9..af99bf3 100644
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@
     <h3 id="fastmail">Fastmail</h3>
     <div class="breakdown">
       <span class="green">Compose in plaintext</span>
-      <span class="red">Wraps text or format=flowed</span>
[message trimmed]

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the potential for bloat the same
before and after this patch? Regardless of whether it's `haredoc` or
`hare doc`, it's still in the main repo, and is installed for all users.
The only difference seems to be what users type.

Is the concern that `hare doc` will make the doc feature more tightly
coupled to `hare`, meaning that as the doc feature grows, so will
`hare`, which we maybe don't want? If so, why not have a `git`-like
strategy, where the user can type `hare doc`, but the code for the `doc`
bit actually lives in another repo, and you can install it as a plugin
or whatever, which could be done automatically by those who package
`hare` if they so desire.

Signed-off-by: Vlad-Stefan Harbuz <vlad@vladh.net>
---
 content/installation.md | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/content/installation.md b/content/installation.md
index 19f0ea2..82aa92f 100644
--- a/content/installation.md
+++ b/content/installation.md
@@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ Bootstrapping Hare only takes a few minutes.
 #### Step 0: Pre-requisites
 
 - A POSIX-compatible environment with a C11 compiler
-- [QBE](https://c9x.me/compile/)
[message trimmed]

Signed-off-by: Vlad-Stefan Harbuz <vlad@vladh.net>
---
 builds.sr.ht/index.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/builds.sr.ht/index.md b/builds.sr.ht/index.md
index 59abf40..d81a45f 100644
--- a/builds.sr.ht/index.md
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ the repository as `.build.yml`. Each time you push, a build with this manifest
 will be submitted. We'll edit the manifest's sources array to point to the ref
 you just pushed. You can also submit up to 4 builds on each push by providing
 `.builds/*.yml` (if more are submitted, 4 manifests will be randomly chosen).
-Use `-o skip-ci` if you don't want to submit builds.
[message trimmed]

(Or, perhaps most simply, you can just associate anything to anything.
An issue tracker and a mailing list can be linked; so can a repository
and a mailing list. There is no central page connecting them. Rather,
all resources have navigation links; for example, a mailing list has a
way to navigate to “things linked to this mailing list”. This approach
would be the most flexible, but still probably unnecessarily so — most
work happens around a repository after all.)

I think it's cool that you thought of documenting this! At the same
time, I think a tutorial, while nice, is not the solution. I shouldn't
have to read a tutorial to know how to use the website. The biggest
problem with projects currently is that the UI is just very confusing.
It's not at all clear what thing is part of which project, what kinds of
things can be part of a project, and how to navigate between different
things within a project.

Another thing that never made sense to me personally is having to decide
whether to create a project or not for each repository. If I only have a
git repository (no tracker etc.), what's the point in _also_ creating a
project for that repository? I've heard the argument that it somehow
gives the project a visible home, but it's practically indistinguishable
from just having a repo.

Signed-off-by: Vlad-Stefan Harbuz <vlad@vladh.net>
---
 content/installation.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/content/installation.md b/content/installation.md
index 19f0ea2..9806731 100644
--- a/content/installation.md
+++ b/content/installation.md
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Bootstrapping Hare only takes a few minutes.
 #### Step 0: Pre-requisites
 
 - A POSIX-compatible environment with a C11 compiler
-- [QBE](https://c9x.me/compile/)
[message trimmed]

Signed-off-by: Vlad-Stefan Harbuz <vlad@vladh.net>
---
 content/community.md | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/content/community.md b/content/community.md
index 986ff30..a7091d2 100644
--- a/content/community.md
+++ b/content/community.md
@@ -37,13 +37,13 @@ compilers to [hare-dev], or [browse the archives][hare-dev-archive].
 
 ### Real-time chat
 
-We meet on [libera.chat][https://libera.chat/] in various channels:
[message trimmed]

On Thu Aug 31, 2023 at 6:19 PM BST, Ember Sawady wrote:
> not sure i necessarily want to broadcast the existence of hare-rfc this
> publicly, since people should still go through some other channel before
> sending an rfc there

Then the solution should probably be explaining clearly when that
mailing list should be used, not making it difficult to find (which
would also hurt people who should legitimately send things there).

At very worst:

    If you have a proposal for a change to Hare, you can send it to [hare-rfc], or
    [browse the archives][hare-rfc-archive], but please read the
    [“RFC process”][rfc] document to ensure this is the appropriate list for you.

I think this makes sense, since (public) discussion on an issue can
currently happen both on the mailing list and on the tracker, but
there's no need to have both. The only thing is, it should be 100% clear
where users should report bugs and send feature requests. It sounds like
sending an email to the mailing list would be _the_ thing that users
should do to report their issue in a non-ephemeral way, right?