On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Colin Ramsay <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know, I agree. They'd use the discussion lists, and then the wiki to
> flesh it out.
I don't see this. A Wiki is completely wrong for a discussion, where
there are several different points of view. Wikis work best when many
people are building on one topic, i.e, where everyone is working
toward the same goal.
Further, a Wiki like Castle's, should be used to to document what
exist. To litter it with pages about features which do not exist (or
having a page which describes a feature in prototype form which vary
wildly from it's final form), can only cause confusion among users.
As for the others you cite ("website/lists/donjon"), the website isn't
an option since so few people on update power on it and the mail lists
are good, for a bit, but topics come & go fast, so if one doesn't gain
traction in a few hours, it's lost in the noise.
So, it basically boils down to donjon vs UV. From what I've seen,
donjon is better for reporting bugs, and UV is better for discussion
new features.
--
Truth,
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Castle Project Development List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
