Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:32:25 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: doc-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Joel Dahl <joel@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en/projects/ideas index.sgml Message-ID: <20070218123225.f9wuaidqsswc0kk0@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20070217193246.M63360@fledge.watson.org> References: <200702161712.l1GHCX81057433@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070217154631.v9su1z6uscsoggsk@webmail.leidinger.net> <20070217193246.M63360@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> (from Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:37:48 +0000 (GMT)): > > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >>> - Magic symlinks: Several implementations exists, so we don't need more >>> people looking at this right now. >> >> But we need people reviewing them and chosing the right one. So the >> entry needs to be changed instead of removed. > > I think an alternative explanaation is that people have looked at them > and been left sufficiently worried by the experience as to wonder > whether "magic symlinks" are really a good idea. I think we should > take it off the list before we get yet another set of patches that > won't be accepted for the same reason. There are mixed feelings about this in the responses. AFAIR it can be summarized to: If it is not enabled by default and needs to be activated even when compiled in (sysctl), then nobody will object. The crowd which is interested in the magic symlinks would be happy with this solution too. If an entry is removed completely because it is inappropriate we should list it somewhere and explain why it will not be accepted in the tree. > I have mixed feelings about "zombie" entries since we've reached the > point where most entries would be zombie entries. How about we have a > separate page on projects that are currently in progress? People go to > the ideas page, one presumes, to find things to work on, so we should > only list things that are new ideas to be worked on. The metaphor behind my idea about the zombie entries can be visualized like as the plug-in window in firefox. It tells you the current status and when you click on update it will show te plug-ins which can be updated. When you update them the state changes in the list. Your proposal can be visualized as two tabs, one with the plugins for which updates are available (open ideas), and one for the plugins which will be activated at next (re)start (nearly finished ideas). For the firefox plugins the current way is more appropriate. For our ideas list I see good points in both approaches. I can't really say one is more appropriate than the other. A variation of the zombie entries idea is to have a separate paragraph for the nearly finished stuff. My main motivation is to show the progess we make. Sometimes I get drive-by questions about the status of some of the entries. So our userbase definitivly wants to know about the progress. As long as we inform them instead of just removing the entries, It's ok for me. I don't care that much if this is inline, as a separate paragraph, or as a separate page. Bye, Alexander. -- Two peanuts were walking through the New York. One was assaulted. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070218123225.f9wuaidqsswc0kk0>