[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: wiki.d.o: SummerOfCode2009/KDE-based-packagemanager

Le April 5, 2009 02:47:07 am, vous avez écrit :
> On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 18:02 -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > Le April 3, 2009 03:10:17 am Frank Lin PIAT, vous avez écrit :
> > > There is a kind of implicit rule on this wiki...
> > > wiki pages are like packages, they are maintained by some Teams/People.
> > > (DebianInstaller/* are managed by DI team, WiFi/* pages are managed by
> > > Geoff Simons and a few others, DebianEdu/* are managed by Holger a few
> > > others ...).
> > > It doesn't prevents other people from contributing. But if the
> > > maintainer don't like one's patch... well that person should try to
> > > understand why his/her patch were rejected and talk to the maintainer.
> > 
> > I see your parallel with packages, but Wiki pages aren't packages.
> > That page used to have no edit restriction, so I didn't suggest a
> > patch - I "committed" my changes directly. 
> The main difference I see is that the moderation is done after the
> commit, not before.
Yeah, but the reason the wiki works this way is that pages don't have maintainers the way we hear it for packages. When I maintain a wiki page, I review the changes made by others, but if I disagree with a change, I'll have to explain why I revert it. That is this way because "wiki maintainers" don't "own" pages, like package maintainers basically "own" their packages. Wiki pages maintainers just... maintain their pages.

> > [..] Sune [..] reverted [the change]. So, I verified my changes,
> > improved my version,
> That was the right thing to do.
> <my experience>
> In case of conflict, I noticed that it help to split the contribution in
> multiple commits, starting with the most important _and_ less intrusive
> ones, finishing with the less important and more controversial ones.
> All with good commits logs.
> </my experience>
I understand. I do that with code, but I don't see the point of splitting these changes in smaller edits, given that the changes are so trivial. There are many tiny changes that could form easily 10 edits. Furthermore, none is controversial, so I wouldn't know how to split the changes in gradually more controversial edits.
I reiterate that I could have used better edit summaries.

> > > Note: the wiki changelog is a very effective communication tool, when
> > > it's used as such. (i.e say what you do and why you did it).
> > I could have used better edit summaries. My changes improve
> > presentation, and note that part of the page (regarding PackageKit)
> > deserves expansion.
> > 
> > > P.S. Chealer, you can use a /Discussion page to submit you ideas.
> > Since I currently can't edit the content page, I couldn't link to such a page.
> Implicitly, my offer included the fact that I would have added the link.
Thank you. I don't have much to add, I just want the changes to be applied. I'd prefer if you'd simply restore the changes. Otherwise, if there's no opposition, I'll just ask DSA to fix my permissions.

Reply to: