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 07:35, 9 May 2014
, 9 May 2014→2nd row of questions: renaming section & response
(→Approaching CategoryTree: reply) |
m (→2nd row of questions: renaming section & response) |
||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
:::: Definitely, thanks. --[[User:Bigstones|Bigstones]] ([[User talk:Bigstones|talk]]) 14:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | :::: Definitely, thanks. --[[User:Bigstones|Bigstones]] ([[User talk:Bigstones|talk]]) 14:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
=== | ===Development classification === | ||
Ok. Now I have another couple questions: | Ok. Now I have another couple questions: | ||
* What's the reasoning behind the distinction between [[:Category:Developer Plans]] and [[:Category:Development projects]]? Does it make sense to tie development plans to a developer? Or is there a difference between plans and projects? (ok, the former are just dreams, but the latter don't guarantee anything.) | * What's the reasoning behind the distinction between [[:Category:Developer Plans]] and [[:Category:Development projects]]? Does it make sense to tie development plans to a developer? Or is there a difference between plans and projects? (ok, the former are just dreams, but the latter don't guarantee anything.) | ||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
:: Thanks for spending the time, I fully understood the Developer Plans part and the last part is practically the "safe area" I wrote about (kinda scared by the amount of data you harvest and pile up everyday). However, if this is how things are, maybe that could be renamed to Core developer plans. It might be a minor change, but clarifies the boundary, or that might get filled by random plans (I myself put some stuff there and will remedy). I didn't expect core devs to be so few. PS: Sorry for the "NOPE not c++" commit, I should have read a couple lines more! | :: Thanks for spending the time, I fully understood the Developer Plans part and the last part is practically the "safe area" I wrote about (kinda scared by the amount of data you harvest and pile up everyday). However, if this is how things are, maybe that could be renamed to Core developer plans. It might be a minor change, but clarifies the boundary, or that might get filled by random plans (I myself put some stuff there and will remedy). I didn't expect core devs to be so few. PS: Sorry for the "NOPE not c++" commit, I should have read a couple lines more! | ||
:: --[[User:Bigstones|Bigstones]] ([[User talk:Bigstones|talk]]) 23:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | :: --[[User:Bigstones|Bigstones]] ([[User talk:Bigstones|talk]]) 23:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
::: no problem (galvedro's work may actually be overlapping with C++/core stuff soon), I just wouldn't prioritize stuff that's really only of interest to people who are either already contributors or who're interested in becoming core developers, that's kinda a niche and once someone is at that stage, they're not going to be bothered by certain inaccuracies or confusing wiki categories. | |||
::: Maybe better coordinate such things with Gijs and Johan_G to find a more self-contained area that benefits from your additions ? Being "all over the place" could be potentially problematic as long as there are concepts and connections that still need to be understood. | |||
::: I am just saying this because we're obviously grateful for anybody volunteering here, especially people willing to do "chores" that really only 2-3 guys are doing otherwise (actually, I don't typically help with such things at all, so it's really just Gijs & Johan). | |||
:::Developer plans vs. core developer plans - we do have developers/contributors who have plans outside core development (e.g. Nasal), so that's where that distinction came from. Then again, nothing is set in stone - it should just be kinda plausible to most people. There's nothing wrong about "random plans" as long as there's a '''contributor''' (not just end-user) that can be associated with such ideas, either willing to work on them, or at least support/mentor people. | |||
:::Otherwise, we'll just end up with tons of unsupported ideas & plans. As I said, it makes a huge difference for us as a project and community of contributors, being self-organized, just '''who''' exactly supports certain ideas - this applies certainly to anything that is not just a trivial weekend hack, but requires many weekends of spare time coding. | |||
:::So we are using "contributor momentum" to evaluate popularity of ideas and to determine if we're interested in teaming up with others who have similar/overlapping ideas. Having just a huge collection of "random & unsupported" feature requests or ideas is begging for trouble, and is the main reason why the issue tracker is not intended for feature requests, i.e. to remain useful for people who are actually able to do certain work. Which is where the wiki shines: Ideas/plans gathered here by contributors (instead of end-users) obviously matter more, even if they should never be touched in months[http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1563&p=11299&hilit=#p11299], they're representing long-term direction. And obviously it also matter just how active a contributor is at any given time, ideas and plans have more weight if someone is still involved and very active, vs. others who are no longer involved or very inactive. We have some fairly active fgdata developers whose contributions are not quite in line with ideas laid out by core developers who are meanwhile pretty much inactive, obviously activity beats inactivity. --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 07:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Tools for a better "new article" interface == | == Tools for a better "new article" interface == | ||