Tags:
archive_me1Add my vote for this tag stale_content1Add my vote for this tag twiki_community1Add my vote for this tag create new tag
, view all tags

Back to Codev

I noticed that the discussions on new features gradually thinned out over several places: Codev, IRC, Bugs web and twiki-dev. This results in discussions and good ideas getting lost, and it makes it almost impossible to refactor and organize things.

I believe we could be more effective if we concentrate our spec discussions and process changes in one place, the Codev web.

We need to clearly define what media is used for what, for example:

  • Codev: Spec discussions & doc, process definitions and changes
  • Similarly, individual plugins' dev topics for discussions about plugin development
  • Bugs:WebHome: Bug tracking, track solidified tasks from specs
  • TWikiIRC: Casual discussions, meetings
  • TWikiDevMailingList: SVN change notifications, feedback on changes

We also should review the ChangeProposal workflow so see how we can improve/simplify the process. I have seen that the Bugs tracking is simple and effective and therefore it is (mis)used for spec discussions. A simplified change proposal on Codev should be able to address this need.

-- PeterThoeny - 06 Jan 2006

Well, I can't find the topics where we discussed dealing with the rats nest that is Codev, so I'll bop in here. (Was it just on irc?) Not to mention the fact that the discussions/arguments seem to have fallen off the edge of the world.

Codev is unmanageable and virtually unusable, at least for some of us. Tagging has been in place for a few week now and has not been of any help to me at all.

I know I can't force anything to happen. I don't even know if I can influence anything to happen. But if you want relative newcomers such as me to stick around, you need webs that are manageable and navigable. Search is useless, using the Jump box as Peter suggested barely more useful. (It didn't help me find the previous discussions regarding Codev, for example, nor does it list topics in descending date order to help find the relatively current discussions.

Codev symbolises much of what has disillusioned me: it's huge and largely unusable. Fortunately, TWiki the software is mostly only huge and slow, although when I run into things like not being able to restore a topic to a previous version, or features that were documented but apparently never tested, I start to fear the unusability as well.

-- MeredithLesly - 30 Mar 2006

It is way more easy to get feedback on features in IRC or mail than in Codev.

I'll give you two examples, both from the last months:

  • There is a patch to be able to define which is the default Web to be used if no web is specified. That path has a topic, and was never commented (ie, no feedback) until I mentioned it to someone in TWikiIRC. Try to find it. It took 24 days until someone gave feedback after the topic was created.
  • I have proposed an alternate implementation for access control lists that retain backward compatibility and allow us to push forward. In one month, one comment. And it was not "it's a good idea" or "it's not a good idea". Was "where's the documentation?". I answered that, no more comments to the day.

I truly don't expect comments about future features from the guys that are working hard to get 4.0.2 out the door, but we're suppose to have a community here. Not having feedback for a new feature can be quite frustrating, as it shows that pehaps is not worth pursuing the idea unless really need it for you applicaition. Thus, creativity and motivation is killed.

Sometimes is way a lot easier just ot commit whatever garbage was hacked for a feature, wait for the complains in the email list/irc and fix the hacks than to post in Codev and see the proposal (and patch) wither and die.

Brainstorming should come back to Codev, or at least summarized in Codev (from email and irc), Items in the Bugs web should reference them only. And the Feature Request workflow should be changed/simplified to ease this process.

-- RafaelAlvarez - 30 Mar 2006

Making Codev usable is by definition a multi-person job. I am quite sure that what I find useful in Codev will be a (probably quite small) subset of what is, in fact, useful to the other frequent participators/contributor of the TWiki community, much less those thinking about contributing.

There was a lively discussion going on in ManageStaleContent until shortly after Peter opined that the discussion was not productive. It died shortly thereafter on 11 Mar 2006 and, AFAIK, there is nothing going on in this area except for sporadic tagging, with, for example, 56 topics tagged stale_content, 33 tagged cruft, 15 tagged as delete_me.

-- MeredithLesly - 30 Mar 2006

Examples, examples, examples? .. What are your questions? How did you try to search for an answer? How would you search for an answer and get a relevant hit (only) in the new setup? What are the usecases you are after? Who are the Personas you are targeting?

-- SteffenPoulsen - 01 Apr 2006

Here is an example for Steffen of what I can't find.

In looking through the TWiki code, I noticed that there were no accessors. Zilch. So, curious as to whether it had been discussed, I put Object into the Jump box. The closest topic I could find was RefactorObjectOriented, which was tiny and answered none of my questions but seemed to have a reasonable name for my commenting on accessors. (There were no hits on Accessor or Accessors.)

-- MeredithLesly - 01 Apr 2006

I like the example, but I don't get the difference between current and setup-to-be? I.e. current setup: There was no answer in the current, you found a suited spot for asking a question and got some feedback. How will this be different in the new setup?

Sorry, I forgot to set explicit context for my previous question: I was curious about the refactor, not the explicit app in question?

-- SteffenPoulsen - 02 Apr 2006

It wasn't really a particularly suitable spot. I didn't want to create yet another topic in Codev -- people having complained about my having done so in the past -- so I posted at an old existing topic that was vaguely related hoping that someone would run into it via Changes. If we had what I considered to be a workable Codev, I probably would have created a new topic called something like OopInDakarAndBeyond. Dumping a question into a topic that hasn't been touched for over two years and is only vaguely related doesn't seem to be a very good way to get answers or, more importantly, to keep related information together.

-- MeredithLesly - 02 Apr 2006

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r13 < r12 < r11 < r10 < r9 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r13 - 2006-06-04 - MeredithLesly
 
  • Learn about TWiki  
  • Download TWiki
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by Perl Hosted by OICcam.com Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback. Ask community in the support forum.
Copyright © 1999-2017 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.