|
Home > Archive > Apache Mod-Python > December 2006 > Was [Issues with "Session use with classes" wiki example.]
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Was [Issues with "Session use with classes" wiki example.]
|
|
| Martin Stoufer 2006-12-05, 7:12 pm |
| Everyone,
I just got around to reading the email from the list regarding the
session/class pages I put up. I think it's best that I take them down
for the time being until I have a better handle on things. Aside from
the few typos I made, the content up there isn't what it should be.
I'm still motivated to post a simple and direct 'hello world' example
that introduces beginners to the core functionality and issues to
address when using sessions with classes. From the valuable feedback
I've gotten so far, I wonder if this is even possible.
And yes, I agree that all the documentation on the wiki should be
addressing the current release (3.3) and let others augment with
notes/sub pages functionality in older releases.
--
* Martin C. Stoufer *
* DST/DIDC/ITG *
* Lawrence Berkeley National Lab *
* MS 50B-2239 510-486-8662 *
| |
| Graham Dumpleton 2006-12-05, 7:12 pm |
| Anyone got any ideas about how we can run a semi informal review process
on any major new additions. When a page has been up for a while just going
in and making them change is reasonable, but if the person is in the process
of still putting it together what is the best way of providing feedback. Is it
just a matter of ensuring that a page isn't linked to in the wiki until people
have had a chance to look over it and comment? Do we discuss it on the
mailing list when there are issues, or put comments direct into pages?
Graham
Martin Stoufer wrote ..
> Everyone,
> I just got around to reading the email from the list regarding the
> session/class pages I put up. I think it's best that I take them down
> for the time being until I have a better handle on things. Aside from
> the few typos I made, the content up there isn't what it should be.
>
> I'm still motivated to post a simple and direct 'hello world' example
> that introduces beginners to the core functionality and issues to
> address when using sessions with classes. From the valuable feedback
> I've gotten so far, I wonder if this is even possible.
>
> And yes, I agree that all the documentation on the wiki should be
> addressing the current release (3.3) and let others augment with
> notes/sub pages functionality in older releases.
>
> --
> * Martin C. Stoufer *
> * DST/DIDC/ITG *
> * Lawrence Berkeley National Lab *
> * MS 50B-2239 510-486-8662 *
| |
| Jorey Bump 2006-12-05, 7:12 pm |
| Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Anyone got any ideas about how we can run a semi informal review process
> on any major new additions. When a page has been up for a while just going
> in and making them change is reasonable, but if the person is in the process
> of still putting it together what is the best way of providing feedback. Is it
> just a matter of ensuring that a page isn't linked to in the wiki until people
> have had a chance to look over it and comment? Do we discuss it on the
> mailing list when there are issues, or put comments direct into pages?
I think we'll experience growing pains while the wiki is in its infancy.
Rather than implement a moderation process, we should probably let
people add content until we get an idea of how it should best be
organized. The new posts are generating a number of discussions that are
actually helpful to the community at large, and imposing a review
process may discourage contributions. I think all wikis eventually reach
a point where access controls are tightened, and eventually we're going
to be spammed, anyway. In the meantime, even correcting erroneous posts
provides a foundation for adding new content.
Having said that, do we have any resident experts on MoinMoin access
controls?
| |
| Martin Stoufer 2006-12-05, 7:12 pm |
| There needs to be some formal vetting process where proposed pages are
critically reviewed by the people in the know. So far I see this being
Graham and Jim G**. This requires that some separation of the Wiki
occurs soon. In one area, the qualified, valid, correct pages are stored
allowing only 'sticky-note' updates and additive comments. The other is
our sandbox where pages are thrashed on and discussed before they are
stamped 'official'. I am in favor of discussing pages via the list. Too
many unanswered comments on a page and you loose sight of the content
flow and meaning.
As an option:
Leave it as a personal decision of the main developers to possibly copy
those gold-quality pages onto the static documentation site.
** If there are other lurkers on the list who know mod_python
inside&out, my apologies for not acknowledging you.
Jorey Bump wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
> I think we'll experience growing pains while the wiki is in its
> infancy. Rather than implement a moderation process, we should
> probably let people add content until we get an idea of how it should
> best be organized. The new posts are generating a number of
> discussions that are actually helpful to the community at large, and
> imposing a review process may discourage contributions. I think all
> wikis eventually reach a point where access controls are tightened,
> and eventually we're going to be spammed, anyway. In the meantime,
> even correcting erroneous posts provides a foundation for adding new
> content.
>
> Having said that, do we have any resident experts on MoinMoin access
> controls?
--
* Martin C. Stoufer *
* DST/DIDC/ITG *
* Lawrence Berkeley National Lab *
* MS 50B-2239 510-486-8662 *
| |
| Jeff Hinrichs - DM&T 2006-12-06, 1:13 am |
| On 12/5/06, Martin Stoufer <MCStoufer@lbl.gov> wrote:
> There needs to be some formal vetting process where proposed pages are
> critically reviewed by the people in the know. So far I see this being
> Graham and Jim G**. This requires that some separation of the Wiki
> occurs soon. In one area, the qualified, valid, correct pages are stored
> allowing only 'sticky-note' updates and additive comments. The other is
> our sandbox where pages are thrashed on and discussed before they are
> stamped 'official'. I am in favor of discussing pages via the list. Too
> many unanswered comments on a page and you loose sight of the content
> flow and meaning.
>
> As an option:
> Leave it as a personal decision of the main developers to possibly copy
> those gold-quality pages onto the static documentation site.
>
> ** If there are other lurkers on the list who know mod_python
> inside&out, my apologies for not acknowledging you.
>
> Jorey Bump wrote:
>
> --
> * Martin C. Stoufer *
> * DST/DIDC/ITG *
> * Lawrence Berkeley National Lab *
> * MS 50B-2239 510-486-8662 *
>
>
>
>
Perhaps -- and I'm just free thinking -- two main branches on the
wiki. One branch would be unapproved/unreviewed articles, like
RoughDocs over on TG and then an official or blessed branch. All the
new stuff from most contributors would go to the roughdocs area, then
once they are ok'd as good they could be moved to the blessed area?
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
|