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 =20 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 =20 >> 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 =20 summarized to: If it is not enabled by default and needs to be =20 activated even when compiled in (sysctl), then nobody will object. The =20 crowd which is interested in the magic symlinks would be happy with =20 this solution too. If an entry is removed completely because it is inappropriate we =20 should list it somewhere and explain why it will not be accepted in =20 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 =20 like as the plug-in window in firefox. It tells you the current status =20 and when you click on update it will show te plug-ins which can be =20 updated. When you update them the state changes in the list. Your proposal can be visualized as two tabs, one with the plugins for =20 which updates are available (open ideas), and one for the plugins =20 which will be activated at next (re)start (nearly finished ideas). For the firefox plugins the current way is more appropriate. For our =20 ideas list I see good points in both approaches. I can't really say =20 one is more appropriate than the other. A variation of the zombie =20 entries idea is to have a separate paragraph for the nearly finished =20 stuff. My main motivation is to show the progess we make. Sometimes I get =20 drive-by questions about the status of some of the entries. So our =20 userbase definitivly wants to know about the progress. As long as we =20 inform them instead of just removing the entries, It's ok for me. I =20 don't care that much if this is inline, as a separate paragraph, or as =20 a separate page. Bye, Alexander. --=20 Two peanuts were walking through the New York. One was assaulted. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070218123225.f9wuaidqsswc0kk0>