Re: Please consider maintaining Blends information (Was: Bullet Physics Library)
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 06:14:06PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I have mentioned these goals because i think Blend tools can help to
> achieve them. The reason why i also want to make use of Debian's wiki is
> simple. I think it is more efficient to use existing infrastructure
> which can easily harness the power of thousands of contributors who
> provide _additional_ information to a game or application. I think using
> existing package descriptions is an excellent idea, all the other things
> i mentioned are completely optional and can be added later step by step.
Ahh, so I misinterpreted your attempt - I assumed you wanted to keep
copied of package descriptions there. You are perfectly right - using
existing infrastructure at debian.org is very reasonable.
> > Yes. But you decided to prefer DebTags over tasks to work on your goal
> > anyway. Why?
> I have no preferences so far and i'm undecided. Hence i'm curious to
> know what others on the list think about it.
> > force other people to follow this example and to streamline this. Yes,
> > I agree it is worth copying but you can not say "Debian should adopt
> > this for their teams".
> "Debian is a Do-O-Cracy" together with "we are all volunteers" goes
> without saying. Unfortunately these buzz words are used too often when
> it would be more appropriate to say: Decision making is sluggish and we
> cannot reach a consensus. I think it's worth discussing this and to put
> more emphasis on team maintenance. I even think it would be great to
> write it down in Debian's policy.
You do seem to assume that there is any interest in discussing. My
experience is different - so far there was no discussion and no need to
find some consensus because there was no controverse discussion.
> The Games Team has good documentation and i found it easy to follow it.
> Unfortunately other teams have done the same or they have different
> requirements. Hence my proposal to streamline this for all teams,
> because every team is part of Debian, isn't it?
Your intention is brave and I would wish you good luck in proposing
> I think leading by example is the best approach. The other one is to
> reach a consensus and to anchor it in Debian's policy.
As I said: If there is no controversal discussion trying to reach a
consensus is void.
> I will read through the Blends documentation during the next days and
> give you more feedback about it. Would also like to see some
> improvements on this matter.
This would be really great.
Kind regards and thanks for your comments