On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Mike Kolesnik wrote: > > I would suggest no - perhaps a "deprecated" field would be useful, but > > I'm unaware of any feature which was added then later removed from the > > project.
I missed the fact that you were limiting your discussion to the extension for 'Features' rather than the wiki generally, and so my scope and yours did not match, as I was thinking generally across the wiki, and not limited to specific Feature pages. I had not intended to hijack a thread ;( > > > As I read setup articles in the wiki, there seems to be such a > > > life-cycle > > > > Set-up articles are slightly different - we will continually try to > > improve and streamline the installation experience. But they wouldn't > > come under "Feature pages" for me. concur > > > 2. Also, exposing: > > > Last edited on: > > > Last editor: > > > would be a goodness -- I regularly receive direct email > > > from folks not willing for wnatever reason to wade into > > > a high volume mailing list, but seeking help, and having > > > the ability to ** find ** someone, anyone authoring in a > > > subject matter area is part of the FOSS ethic > > > > Yes, I think an "Updated on:" field would be good. In combination with > > Wouldn't this be the same as the "last updated" field that we already have in > the feature pages? > > > an "Owner" field, that should take care of your need. As I read it, and as I look, Owner is really more tied to Features -- I was discussing a simple way from for a end user coming to the wiki (usually without edit rights) to identify someone (the last person doing edits) who may have subject matter expertise in general > > > 3. And having a formal machanism to formally catch > > > Potentially stale: > > > > > > content, so that pages might be marked in one pass and 'on the > > > fly', then later searched, and finally curated back to not > > > 'Potentially stale' > > > > > > were markings I used when maintaining CentOS wiki presence, > > > to combat entropy > > > > Again, it seems like you're thinking of this as something which might be > > on all pages - its specifically for "feature pages" - they are > > functional specs and design documents for features to be added to oVirt. > > I don't think "potentially stale" applies (perhaps I'm wrong?). Yes -- my comments were out of scope for Feature subset of pages Thanks for the feedback -- Russ herrold _______________________________________________ Arch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
