20,741
edits
User talk:Bigstones/Essay:A plan for a reorganization of the wiki: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
User talk:Bigstones/Essay:A plan for a reorganization of the wiki (view source)
Revision as of 23:16, 8 May 2014
, 8 May 2014no edit summary
(→Approaching CategoryTree: asking a 2nd row of questions) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
*Is shader development core? is it sorcery? | *Is shader development core? is it sorcery? | ||
--[[User:Bigstones|Bigstones]] ([[User talk:Bigstones|talk]]) 22:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | --[[User:Bigstones|Bigstones]] ([[User talk:Bigstones|talk]]) 22:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
: * Developer plans are plans by individual developers, i.e. collections of ideas and publicly stated goals, without anybody actually working on stuff necessarily, i.e. long-term stuff that people are interested in. | |||
: * development projects are projects that people are actually working on | |||
: * yeah, it very much makes sense to associate developers with plans, because there are more ideas and feature requests than be handled realistically. But whenever an idea or "plan" is associated with a known contributor, that idea/plan has obviously more weight than some random suggestion coming from someone external to the project. And certain plans have even much more weight than others, e.g. [[Plan-zakalawe]] or [[User:TheTom]] are fairly representative simply because those are the two main guys handling the majority of commits for the time being[http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22119&p=201125&hilit=#p201125]. Having people linked to ideas/plans is a good thing in my opinion, because we -as contributors- can actually learn who supports certain ideas. For instance, whenever I support a certain idea, I am willing to provide mentoring, and I know of others like Philosopher, who also provide additional support for certain projects. | |||
: * core development is C++ development, usually handled by core developers, i.e. people with commit access - or at least C++ development by people who are working towards getting this committed, i.e. not some branch that is intended to be never merged, aka irrelevant to the main project (fork). | |||
: * scripting in Nasal/Python is generally not considered core development, unless it touches core development stuff - e.g. in the case of [[Canvas]] which makes certain C++ code obsolete through scripting space bindings. | |||
: * osm2city et al are not considered core development, but the people working on those features are hoping to eventually re-implement some parts via core extensions. | |||
: * shaders are middleware/base package development, i.e. do not typically require SG/FG commit access or C++ changes, and are thus not generally considered "core" development. | |||
: * Overall, I'd suggest not to tamper with categories/areas that you don't understand, i.e. that require interpretations of different types of contributions-those categories are unlikely to be relevant to end-users anyway. And people who are looking for this info will typically also understand the various differences. Cleaning up such things is low priority in my opinion, someone able to build from source and program in C++ is unlikely to be affected by proper/improper categories, so no need to waste any time here-better focus on popular articles and categories first. Existing contributors, especially core developers, are unlikely to benefit greatly from such wiki improvements, and to be honest: most of us don't care at all - there are very few core developers who actually contribute to the wiki, let alone care for formalizing such differences and boundaries.--[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 23:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Tools for a better "new article" interface == | == Tools for a better "new article" interface == | ||