Thread: Developer's Wiki
I have now moved the wiki installation to: http://developer.postgresql.org/ Where it is currently available for use by any hackers for non-end-user related activities. I haven't changed Greg's original configuration at all so it is still open for use by anyone at present, however I have added an introduction to the front page warning that end-user related content may be removed without notice. I've also added a couple of sections under which to add links to projects and management documentation hosted on the wiki. Let's see how it goes for now, and if it gets abused in anyway we can review whether or not we need to think about moderation. Regards, Dave.
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 08:33:41PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: > I have now moved the wiki installation to: > > http://developer.postgresql.org/ Ok, it looks like pages can be arranged hierarchically. It would seems like pages named: Todo:<todo topic> would be a good idea for detailed info on todo items (and progress info). With Todo:Contents being a front page? Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
Attachment
Martijn van Oosterhout said: > Ok, it looks like pages can be arranged hierarchically. Well, a prefix like "Todo:" is not the incantation one needs to use to arrange pages in hierarchies. You probably want "/" to indicate a subpage: i.e. "Parent/Child". See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Link#Subpage_feature > It would seems like pages named: > > Todo:<todo topic> > > would be a good idea for detailed info on todo items (and progress > info). I suggest you just give pages names that describe the content of the page, and then have a category for all the pages that constitute TODO items. See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Category -Neil
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:30:13PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout said: > > Ok, it looks like pages can be arranged hierarchically. > > Well, a prefix like "Todo:" is not the incantation one needs to use to > arrange pages in hierarchies. You probably want "/" to indicate a subpage: > i.e. "Parent/Child". See > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Link#Subpage_feature It also says it's not enabled by default. Is it enabled? I was actually hoping for more feedback on the content itself. I'm still not clear if it's supposed to be "developers only - to the exclusion of users" or "developers only - but accessable to anyone". Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
Attachment
Martjin, > I was actually hoping for more feedback on the content itself. I'm > still not clear if it's supposed to be "developers only - to the > exclusion of users" or "developers only - but accessable to anyone". It should be readable by everyone, but editable only by authorized users. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Greg, > I think the lessons of wikipedia is precisely that you *don't* want to add > such barriers. You want to let people add stuff pretty much freely. That > encourages people to get involved and put up information. The other lesson of Wikipedia is that maintaining wiki quality for a generally editable wiki requires a full-time dedicated staff. We don't even have any volunteers who have 4 hours/week to commit to cleaning up the wiki, unless you're volunteering. This is *particularly* true of the TODO stuff. We simply don't want Joe User adding their personal wishlist to the TODOs, and that's exactly what will happen if the TODO list is world-writable. TODOs should be items which have been hashed out here on the Hackers list, and the wiki page should list the specification which is the general consensus. If we had a "user documentation wiki", then *that* should be world-editable, but again that would require community volunteers to dedicate to cleaning it up. The developer wiki is by and for actual contributors. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Gregory Stark wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>
>>> I was actually hoping for more feedback on the content itself. I'm
>>> still not clear if it's supposed to be "developers only - to the
>>> exclusion of users" or "developers only - but accessable to anyone".
>> It should be readable by everyone, but editable only by authorized users.
>
> I think the lessons of wikipedia is precisely that you *don't* want to add
> such barriers. You want to let people add stuff pretty much freely. That
> encourages people to get involved and put up information.
I don't agree, you should also look at the recent post and fork by one
of wikipedia's co-founders. The developers wiki should only be edited by
authorized users.
Now, getting authorized should be easy as reasonably possible, but
having a wholesale editing orgy on the wiki responsible for tracking
postgresql developer information is not a good idea.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Gregory Stark wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>
>> The other lesson of Wikipedia is that maintaining wiki quality for a generally
>> editable wiki requires a full-time dedicated staff. We don't even have any
>> volunteers who have 4 hours/week to commit to cleaning up the wiki, unless
>> you're volunteering.
>
> Bullshit. Most pages on wikipedia don't require any attention from such staff.
This does not help your argument.
> The wiki has been sitting there for two weeks and hasn't had any problems.
> It's already getting more attention and updates than the techdocs wiki which
> still has articles up from 2001 that are no longer relevant and in some cases
> are actively misleading.
Techdocs is a different problem all together. Josh has already mentioned
some problems with it. I can mention more.
1. It isn't easy to login
2. It is even harder to create a login
3. There is no creation of login for most people because they don't know
they have to go to the community portion of the www site to get to it.
I am sure their are other problems on the inside, I haven't actually
ever logged in ;)
>
> Putting barriers up blocking people trying to help isn't any guarantee of
> quality. What it does guarantee is irrelevance.
Again you argue without actual evidence. Wikipedia is a success it is
however it does have quite a bit of problems as well. A simple but very
straightforward signup mechanism isn't going to stop most people.
>
> Frankly that's what we have today and that's why it's useless. Things only get
> put on the list when everyone who cares already knows what has to be done and
> then nobody looks at it because there's nothing there they don't already know
> about.
Anytime I have asked for something to be put on the TODO list, it is. As
long as I can provide a practical reason as to what it is and why it
would be good.
That part of the TODO works just fine.
Now, do I think there is improvement to be made? Of course but the
current TODO is far from useless.
>
> A TODO list people can freely add stuff to is precisely what would make it
> useful. It would have things we don't already know.
>
I am just going to hope that you are kidding about this one.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> A TODO list people can freely add stuff to is precisely what would make it
>> useful. It would have things we don't already know.
> I am just going to hope that you are kidding about this one.
Fortunately, none of the real developers would have to pay any attention
to any such page ... and you can bet they wouldn't.
regards, tom lane
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> I was actually hoping for more feedback on the content itself. I'm >> still not clear if it's supposed to be "developers only - to the >> exclusion of users" or "developers only - but accessable to anyone". > > It should be readable by everyone, but editable only by authorized users. I think the lessons of wikipedia is precisely that you *don't* want to add such barriers. You want to let people add stuff pretty much freely. That encourages people to get involved and put up information. Experience shows that most people are cooperative most of the time. If there turns out to be particularly contentious areas you can restrict access to those areas to authorized users or ban ip addresses. I've already put some stuff up there. I didn't plan to, but when I was browsing I had ideas and the ability to add content was just one click away... -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > The other lesson of Wikipedia is that maintaining wiki quality for a generally > editable wiki requires a full-time dedicated staff. We don't even have any > volunteers who have 4 hours/week to commit to cleaning up the wiki, unless > you're volunteering. Bullshit. Most pages on wikipedia don't require any attention from such staff. There are *millions* of pages constantly being updated something that only works because of that dynamic. Only a small number of pages need any special attention. The wiki has been sitting there for two weeks and hasn't had any problems. It's already getting more attention and updates than the techdocs wiki which still has articles up from 2001 that are no longer relevant and in some cases are actively misleading. Putting barriers up blocking people trying to help isn't any guarantee of quality. What it does guarantee is irrelevance. > This is *particularly* true of the TODO stuff. We simply don't want Joe User > adding their personal wishlist to the TODOs, and that's exactly what will > happen if the TODO list is world-writable. TODOs should be items which have > been hashed out here on the Hackers list, and the wiki page should list the > specification which is the general consensus. Frankly that's what we have today and that's why it's useless. Things only get put on the list when everyone who cares already knows what has to be done and then nobody looks at it because there's nothing there they don't already know about. A TODO list people can freely add stuff to is precisely what would make it useful. It would have things we don't already know. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The wiki has been sitting there for two weeks and hasn't had > any problems. Uh, you mean apart from the fact that it took very little time (days, IIRC) before we had people writing attempts at user documentation, somthing that we already have *two* different systems (interactive docs + new techdocs) for, and specifically said we absolutely did not want on this wiki? IIRC, that got on there long before *any* content related to what was actually supposed to be there.. > It's already getting more attention and updates than the > techdocs wiki which still has articles up from 2001 that are > no longer relevant and in some cases are actively misleading. It's in the process of being cleaned up, mainly by Robert Treat. I'm sure he'd appreciate help. Why would *this* wiki be less suceptible to the same kind of issues than the old one? That's more an argument that we *will* have this problem on the wiki. //Magnus
> Techdocs is a different problem all together. Josh has > already mentioned some problems with it. I can mention more. [warning: thread hi-jack] > 1. It isn't easy to login Really? You're kidding, right? You click a link that requires login, and you get a browser login box. How much easier can it be? > 2. It is even harder to create a login Again, really? If yo uget the login prompt and hit cancel (or just login with an invalid password), that says "you need a community login. If you don't hav eone, click here to read about it." If you "click here", you get to the page where you sign up. Now, explaining this process on the frontpage of the techdocs part of the site might not be a bad idea at all (in fact, it's a good idea :-P), but do you honestly think the process is complex? If so, what should we do to make it easier? > 3. There is no creation of login for most people because they > don't know they have to go to the community portion of the > www site to get to it. See above, you don't need to do this. > I am sure their are other problems on the inside, I haven't > actually ever logged in ;) You should, we'd like to know about them so we can fix them. //Magnus
> 1. Authorized user: is that someone with an account, or someone who has
> been authorized by someone else?
In my mind it is someone who without threw a process of email
confirmation. Just to help stave off the amount of trolling that may happen.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> 2. I can see the official todo list being in CVS, which gives it all
> the access protection it needs. A wiki todo list can stay where it is,
> just that it's not official.
>
> [I've just made a reference to the TODO list in CVS from the wiki, that
> should help].
>
> Have a nice day,
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
> >> 1. It isn't easy to login > > Really? You're kidding, right? You click a link that requires login, and > you get a browser login box. How much easier can it be? What URL are you talking about? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs Where do I click login? Where do I click create account? Where do I click to login? > >> 2. It is even harder to create a login > > Again, really? If yo uget the login prompt and hit cancel (or just login > with an invalid password), that says "you need a community login. If you > don't hav eone, click here to read about it." If you "click here", you > get to the page where you sign up. You are corrent, now that I have tried it. If I click edit, and then cancel because I don't have a login I get a page that tells me: * Login required * Accessing this resource requires a community login. If you don't have * one, you can read about it here. To try again, just press your * browsers Refresh button. Which pretty much goes against how every other site in the world does it. I shouldn't have to throw an exception to perform the correct behavior. That page that tells me where to login should come *BEFORE* I get a login prompt. > > Now, explaining this process on the frontpage of the techdocs part of > the site might not be a bad idea at all (in fact, it's a good idea :-P), > but do you honestly think the process is complex? If so, what should we > do to make it easier? Let me rephrase. It is not complex, it is not standard. Which makes it confusing. What I expect is this: Open web browser Go to techdocs Either the first thing I see is, * You are not logged in, if you wish to edit content click here to login or create an account. * When I click edit the above happens. >> 3. There is no creation of login for most people because they >> don't know they have to go to the community portion of the >> www site to get to it. > > See above, you don't need to do this. > You are correct but most people are going to be confused. They are going to click edit, see a login/password they don't have and move on. Heck I probably have hit cancel before and didn't even read the text after. Why? Because the text after a login failure or cancel when using httpd auth is almost ALWAYS telling me I need a correct login. Not giving a link to login. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 03:09:29PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > The wiki has been sitting there for two weeks and hasn't had > > any problems. > > Uh, you mean apart from the fact that it took very little time (days, > IIRC) before we had people writing attempts at user documentation, <snip> Really? Where was that? Did it get deleted in the meantime? Who's responsible for that kind of thing? Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
Attachment
> >> 1. It isn't easy to login > > > > Really? You're kidding, right? You click a link that > requires login, > > and you get a browser login box. How much easier can it be? > > What URL are you talking about? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs Yes. > Where do I click login? Where do I click create account? > Where do I click to login? You click to do whatever you want to do - say edit a page or create a new page. When you do, you will be asked to log in. There is no point in asking you to log in when you don't need it (such as for reading pages) > You are corrent, now that I have tried it. > > If I click edit, and then cancel because I don't have a login > I get a page that tells me: > > * Login required > > * Accessing this resource requires a community login. If you > don't have > * one, you can read about it here. To try again, just press your > * browsers Refresh button. > > Which pretty much goes against how every other site in the > world does it. I shouldn't have to throw an exception to > perform the correct behavior. No, that's correct. But in *normal* access, you just get the login prompt and you go for it. The usability issue is definitly with the signup though - do you think it'd be enough to just add a blurb about it on the first page of techdocs? > That page that tells me where to login should come *BEFORE* I > get a login prompt. Here, we clearly disagree, I think. If you mean a system like pgFoundry, where you find where you want to go and edit something (say a tracker), then you have to specifically go log in (because you never remember to do that when you get there in the first place - or you may have received the link in email), at which point you are promptly sent off to a completely different page than the one you wanted to edit... > Let me rephrase. It is not complex, it is not standard. Which > makes it confusing. > > What I expect is this: > > Open web browser > Go to techdocs > > Either the first thing I see is, > > * You are not logged in, if you wish to edit content click > here to login or create an account. > > * When I click edit the above happens. Depends on whose standard you look at, I guess. This is how most "proper" sites work, IMHO. There are a whole lot of sucky sites out there, though :-P Therere is anothe rproblem with that one - it does not scale. It requires every pgae to be dynamic and look if you are logged in. > Why? > > Because the text after a login failure or cancel when using > httpd auth is almost ALWAYS telling me I need a correct > login. Not giving a link to login. Yes, this is definitly a problem. again, you think it'd be enough to stick it o nthe frontpage of techdocs, or do we need a small blurb on every page next to the edit links? //Magnus
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: >> 1. Authorized user: is that someone with an account, or someone who has >> been authorized by someone else? > > In my mind it is someone who without threw a process of email confirmation. > Just to help stave off the amount of trolling that may happen. I guess it depends on whether you feel the larger of the project's problems is too many people trying to help who must be stopped before they do something that may need to be corrected or too few people getting past the natural barriers to being able to contribute. The former would be a great problem to have but I don't see any evidence of it. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
>>> 1. Authorized user: is that someone with an account, or someone who has
>>> been authorized by someone else?
>> In my mind it is someone who without threw a process of email confirmation.
>> Just to help stave off the amount of trolling that may happen.
>
> I guess it depends on whether you feel the larger of the project's problems is
> too many people trying to help who must be stopped before they do something
> that may need to be corrected or too few people getting past the natural
> barriers to being able to contribute.
That is a good point. I see it as more of a problem with crap content
that could occur and thus good content won't.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> The former would be a great problem to have but I don't see any evidence of
> it.
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 09:15:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fortunately, none of the real developers would have to pay any attention
>> to any such page ... and you can bet they wouldn't.
> If someone wants to spend an afternoon putting up a coherent
> description of their wishlist item complete with possible problems and
> solutions, then I don't see why we should stop them.
Because if they're willing to put any actual effort into it, the right
way is to post that same item to the mailing list where it can be
discussed. If it survives such discussion (very possibly in a modified
form) *then* it belongs on a TODO list. The first problem with a wiki
TODO is that it will not reflect any sort of community consensus, only
the opinions of whoever edited the page last. The second problem is
that setting it up represents a unilateral attempt to redefine (bypass?)
the community's design/development process, which is a process that has
served us well for many years and is not showing any signs of being
broken.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes: > >> On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 09:15:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> Fortunately, none of the real developers would have to pay any attention >>> to any such page ... and you can bet they wouldn't. >>> > > >> If someone wants to spend an afternoon putting up a coherent >> description of their wishlist item complete with possible problems and >> solutions, then I don't see why we should stop them. >> > > Because if they're willing to put any actual effort into it, the right > way is to post that same item to the mailing list where it can be > discussed. If it survives such discussion (very possibly in a modified > form) *then* it belongs on a TODO list. The first problem with a wiki > TODO is that it will not reflect any sort of community consensus, only > the opinions of whoever edited the page last. The second problem is > that setting it up represents a unilateral attempt to redefine (bypass?) > the community's design/development process, which is a process that has > served us well for many years and is not showing any signs of being > broken. > > > I agree with lots of this. Being slightly more abstract, we are grappling with a couple of different kinds of objects here: discussions and decisions. The mailing list is a very good way of having a discussion, and a wiki is IMNSHO a poor substitute. Ditto, bulletin board, web forum, blog ..... The reason is simply that with a mailing list all you need is a subscription to get the info delivered to you in a medium everybody uses. It's push, not pull, and that's very appealing. Any other mechanism requires the user to seek the location of the discussion actively to some degree. Conversely, the very unstructured nature of the mailing list(s) makes them a poor medium for capturing decisions. That's why some of us have advocated use of a tracker to capture decisions about development directions, because the TODO list doesn't seem appropriate. But an open wiki would be a horrible substitute for the TODO list - it would turn it from a list that reflects at least some discussion and consensus into a mere wish list of no authority whatsoever. IOW, it is the exact opposite of the direction I believe we should be headed. I use wikis in my work as a good way of capturing all sorts of information I want to keep. But I have generally found them to be less than successful as a way of capturing discussions or developing coherent bodies of technical information and decisions. Comparisons have been made with WikiPedia - they are inappropriate. Quite apart from anything else Wikipedia survives through the work of a huge team of editors who review the work of contributors. And they still run into trouble. We don't have the resources and we don't need the fights. So let's not go there. The only good purpose I can see for a developer wiki is as a place to publish information that is too large for the mailing lists. Currently we provide web and other space for a few users - a wiki would allow us to provide publishing facilities in a central spot for a significantly wider group of people, with very little cost. Tom proposed a modest roadmap type experiment a week or so ago. I'd like to see that pursued. After all, we know of some things that are at least at first cut stage for 8.3, and a few things high on may people's agenda. I'd also like to see some work done on using a tracker (for features as well as bugs). The rest of what's been talked about strikes me as wasted effort, to be honest. We seem to be running in a few directions which look like dead ends to me. Let's pick one or two strategically, and follow those instead. cheers andrew
> Tom proposed a modest roadmap type experiment a week or so ago. I'd like
> to see that pursued. After all, we know of some things that are at least
> at first cut stage for 8.3, and a few things high on may people's
> agenda. I'd also like to see some work done on using a tracker (for
> features as well as bugs). The rest of what's been talked about strikes
> me as wasted effort, to be honest. We seem to be running in a few
> directions which look like dead ends to me. Let's pick one or two
> strategically, and follow those instead.
There are a couple of people helping me with pgbugs.commandprompt.com.
We could always use a couple more.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 12:32:13PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >Tom proposed a modest roadmap type experiment a week or so ago. I'd like > >to see that pursued. After all, we know of some things that are at least > >at first cut stage for 8.3, and a few things high on may people's > >agenda. I'd also like to see some work done on using a tracker (for > >features as well as bugs). The rest of what's been talked about strikes > >me as wasted effort, to be honest. We seem to be running in a few > >directions which look like dead ends to me. Let's pick one or two > >strategically, and follow those instead. > > There are a couple of people helping me with pgbugs.commandprompt.com. > We could always use a couple more. Sorry if I missed an email, but help doing what? Are we actively trying to do something with that besides just play around with it (I'm already pretty well-aware of bugzilla's capabilities...) -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 12:32:13PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Tom proposed a modest roadmap type experiment a week or so ago. I'd like
>>> to see that pursued. After all, we know of some things that are at least
>>> at first cut stage for 8.3, and a few things high on may people's
>>> agenda. I'd also like to see some work done on using a tracker (for
>>> features as well as bugs). The rest of what's been talked about strikes
>>> me as wasted effort, to be honest. We seem to be running in a few
>>> directions which look like dead ends to me. Let's pick one or two
>>> strategically, and follow those instead.
>> There are a couple of people helping me with pgbugs.commandprompt.com.
>> We could always use a couple more.
>
> Sorry if I missed an email, but help doing what? Are we actively trying
> to do something with that besides just play around with it (I'm already
> pretty well-aware of bugzilla's capabilities...)
Well yes, we are trying to use it :). If it becomes useful enough, we
hope that the project as a whole will move to it. If it isn't useful
enough, then we can say "We have actually tried it for the project, it
didn't work."
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Ok, so what is it you need help with? On Sep 18, 2006, at 1:24 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 12:32:13PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>>> Tom proposed a modest roadmap type experiment a week or so ago. >>>> I'd like to see that pursued. After all, we know of some things >>>> that are at least at first cut stage for 8.3, and a few things >>>> high on may people's agenda. I'd also like to see some work done >>>> on using a tracker (for features as well as bugs). The rest of >>>> what's been talked about strikes me as wasted effort, to be >>>> honest. We seem to be running in a few directions which look >>>> like dead ends to me. Let's pick one or two strategically, and >>>> follow those instead. >>> There are a couple of people helping me with >>> pgbugs.commandprompt.com. We could always use a couple more. >> Sorry if I missed an email, but help doing what? Are we actively >> trying >> to do something with that besides just play around with it (I'm >> already >> pretty well-aware of bugzilla's capabilities...) > > Well yes, we are trying to use it :). If it becomes useful enough, > we hope that the project as a whole will move to it. If it isn't > useful enough, then we can say "We have actually tried it for the > project, it didn't work." > > Joshua D. Drake > > > -- > > === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === > Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 > Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 > http://www.commandprompt.com/ > > -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Jim Nasby wrote: > Ok, so what is it you need help with? see previous discussion about what is required to keep a tracker system healthy. In particular: . items appearing in other media need to be put in the tracker . items entered in the tracker need to be regularly triaged, reviewed and updated. Systems lacking this amount of TLC rapidly become useless, and in fact unused. Also, if we are in fact going to use bz, there is probably some dev work that should be done to improve/extend its email functionality, to make it fit the way we do business better. cheers andrew > > On Sep 18, 2006, at 1:24 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Jim C. Nasby wrote: >>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 12:32:13PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>>>> Tom proposed a modest roadmap type experiment a week or so ago. >>>>> I'd like to see that pursued. After all, we know of some things >>>>> that are at least at first cut stage for 8.3, and a few things >>>>> high on may people's agenda. I'd also like to see some work done >>>>> on using a tracker (for features as well as bugs). The rest of >>>>> what's been talked about strikes me as wasted effort, to be >>>>> honest. We seem to be running in a few directions which look like >>>>> dead ends to me. Let's pick one or two strategically, and follow >>>>> those instead. >>>> There are a couple of people helping me with >>>> pgbugs.commandprompt.com. We could always use a couple more. >>> Sorry if I missed an email, but help doing what? Are we actively trying >>> to do something with that besides just play around with it (I'm already >>> pretty well-aware of bugzilla's capabilities...) >> >> Well yes, we are trying to use it :). If it becomes useful enough, we >> hope that the project as a whole will move to it. If it isn't useful >> enough, then we can say "We have actually tried it for the project, >> it didn't work." > >
Hi, Martijn, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > 2. I can see the official todo list being in CVS, which gives it all > the access protection it needs. A wiki todo list can stay where it is, > just that it's not official. > > [I've just made a reference to the TODO list in CVS from the wiki, that > should help]. Maybe you should rename the public writable Wiki page list to Wishlist instead of Todo, to make the difference more explicit. Thanks, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org
Attachment
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 12:28:54PM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote: > Maybe you should rename the public writable Wiki page list to Wishlist > instead of Todo, to make the difference more explicit. Hmm, all the stuff there now does refer to things that are on the TODO list (I think). So it's not wishlist at all, it's the *detail* that's unoffical. But you're right, it'd probably be a good idea to make a section for absolutly wishlist stuff. I just can't think of any right now, the TODO list is quite extensive. In any case I've altered the wording a bit to make the distinction a bit clearer. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.