20,741
edits
FlightGear wiki:Village pump: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→readability and quality of articles - quoting statements from the forum useful?: @chriscalef
m (→readability and quality of articles - quoting statements from the forum useful?: indentation and vertical spacing) |
|||
| Line 380: | Line 380: | ||
::::: --[[User:chriscalef|chriscalef]] | ::::: --[[User:chriscalef|chriscalef]] | ||
:: @chriscalef: Thanks for actually providing a developer's point of view - it's really appreciated. Like I said elsewhere, I do fully agree that the style of such "collections of quotes" is very poor-but, we have many articles and features that started out as "stubs" exactly like you say. And we cannot possibly expect newcomers, interested in doing development, to do this degree of "research" in the archives, at the very least, it would be very unfriendly to keep pointing potential contributors to the archives like this and probably raise the barrier to entry, too - especially, because search terms are pretty specific. | |||
:: But we also cannot be expected to create proper write-ups for each frequently raised topic on the devel list/forum. | |||
:: Which is why those pages with quotes were/are created, and are being updated as time goes on. | |||
:: I have been in touch with a number of contributors and developers to see if we can find a solution that keeps all considerations in mind, while still keeping in mind the degree of involvement and stakes people, and especially developers (current ones, but also future ones), have. | |||
:: Obviously, given the number of important areas in FlightGear, competence and expertise vary widely among all contributors. And core developers may not necessarily be in a good position to judge the quality of of FDM/helicopter or 3D modeling related articles - and it seems that aircraft developers may not necessarily be in a good position to judge the quality/degree of usefulness of core developer quotes kept here. | |||
:: Indeed, there's postings to be found on the forum from around ~2010 when I said that a property-tree based 2D rendering API could not work fast enough, and when I suggested that native Nasal bindings should be used instead - equally, write-ups like the original Canvas proposal were critically discussed/dissected by other contributors-meanwhile, as we all know, [[User:TheTom]] has proven all of us wrong with his [[Canvas]] system. | |||
:: So I guess, that goes to show that everybody can be wrong-and proven wrong, even by newcomers, including even people involved in the project for years. | |||
:: For now, I'll opt to stay out of this to allow all parties to remain level-headed... If anybody would still like to get in touch, please use my talk page or send a forum PM. I am sure that we can find a way that addresses all concerns, without possibly harming the project by applying quality standards that might kill off discussions/features prematurely. Thanks --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 14:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
[[Category:FlightGear wiki]] | [[Category:FlightGear wiki]] | ||