Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jsb"

From FlightGear wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (+header)
(Nasal init edits / 01/2020)
Line 3: Line 3:
  
 
I do appreciate your recent work/effort WRT documenting [[Nasal Initialization]] and might even see a way to contribute missing bits to it - however, the article you've pruned (aka: deleted) by this [http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php?title=Initializing_Nasal_early&curid=10842&diff=121294&oldid=95208 change] is certainly not outdated, [[Initializing Nasal early]] has a very different purpose and scope. While it may admittedly not seem as useful to you, it's based on discussions, and patches, among people who are intimately familiar with the shortcomings of the current Nasal initialization scheme, as well as Nasal bootstrapping issues in general, so it does provide a number of pointers to relevant work, patches and discussions. As such, it should not be deleted, as it even points to working branches/patches that solve a number of these issues via a proof-of-concept approach. The article/link you have now deleted is referenced in countless forum postings and other wiki articles that specifically talk about these very issues, changing the article to point to your new article is at best misleading, and at worst highly confusing. Regarding your particular work, you may want to look at some of Philsopher's original work, specifically the "nasal internals" PDF (LaTex document). This is not to discourage your work, I think it will be highly useful, but documenting the current scheme is not the same thing as documenting discussions and patches to solve issues related to the current scheme. Thus, please revert your change to that article unless/until there is a scheme in place to deal with the very restrictions discussed in [[Initializing Nasal early]] . Thanks & all the best --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 09:54, 8 January 2020 (EST)
 
I do appreciate your recent work/effort WRT documenting [[Nasal Initialization]] and might even see a way to contribute missing bits to it - however, the article you've pruned (aka: deleted) by this [http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php?title=Initializing_Nasal_early&curid=10842&diff=121294&oldid=95208 change] is certainly not outdated, [[Initializing Nasal early]] has a very different purpose and scope. While it may admittedly not seem as useful to you, it's based on discussions, and patches, among people who are intimately familiar with the shortcomings of the current Nasal initialization scheme, as well as Nasal bootstrapping issues in general, so it does provide a number of pointers to relevant work, patches and discussions. As such, it should not be deleted, as it even points to working branches/patches that solve a number of these issues via a proof-of-concept approach. The article/link you have now deleted is referenced in countless forum postings and other wiki articles that specifically talk about these very issues, changing the article to point to your new article is at best misleading, and at worst highly confusing. Regarding your particular work, you may want to look at some of Philsopher's original work, specifically the "nasal internals" PDF (LaTex document). This is not to discourage your work, I think it will be highly useful, but documenting the current scheme is not the same thing as documenting discussions and patches to solve issues related to the current scheme. Thus, please revert your change to that article unless/until there is a scheme in place to deal with the very restrictions discussed in [[Initializing Nasal early]] . Thanks & all the best --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 09:54, 8 January 2020 (EST)
 +
 +
Hooray,
 +
ss you wish. May I recommend you start writing real articles instead of collecting quotes?!
 +
My personal opinion (which may or may not offend you) is, that it is of no use and nobody really likes to read such pages that are cluttered with quotes.
 +
It is not "readable" and relevant information is not findable in reasonable time, so why don't you start writing pages with quality?
 +
I know this is more work and takes time but in the end you get something people may want to read.
 +
just my 2ct

Revision as of 11:37, 8 January 2020

Nasal init edits / 01/2020

Hi,

I do appreciate your recent work/effort WRT documenting Nasal Initialization and might even see a way to contribute missing bits to it - however, the article you've pruned (aka: deleted) by this change is certainly not outdated, Initializing Nasal early has a very different purpose and scope. While it may admittedly not seem as useful to you, it's based on discussions, and patches, among people who are intimately familiar with the shortcomings of the current Nasal initialization scheme, as well as Nasal bootstrapping issues in general, so it does provide a number of pointers to relevant work, patches and discussions. As such, it should not be deleted, as it even points to working branches/patches that solve a number of these issues via a proof-of-concept approach. The article/link you have now deleted is referenced in countless forum postings and other wiki articles that specifically talk about these very issues, changing the article to point to your new article is at best misleading, and at worst highly confusing. Regarding your particular work, you may want to look at some of Philsopher's original work, specifically the "nasal internals" PDF (LaTex document). This is not to discourage your work, I think it will be highly useful, but documenting the current scheme is not the same thing as documenting discussions and patches to solve issues related to the current scheme. Thus, please revert your change to that article unless/until there is a scheme in place to deal with the very restrictions discussed in Initializing Nasal early . Thanks & all the best --Hooray (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2020 (EST)

Hooray, ss you wish. May I recommend you start writing real articles instead of collecting quotes?! My personal opinion (which may or may not offend you) is, that it is of no use and nobody really likes to read such pages that are cluttered with quotes. It is not "readable" and relevant information is not findable in reasonable time, so why don't you start writing pages with quality? I know this is more work and takes time but in the end you get something people may want to read. just my 2ct