On 02/07/2010 03:40 PM, res wrote: > On 06.02.2010 20:06, Denis Washington wrote: > >> I too think the webpage layout should be revised. It should be >> considered to change from the current Wiki to a CMS like Drupal; as the >> Trac developer page is already a wiki, I don't see much of a reason of >> making the main page a wiki too. In its current state, it only >> accumulates spam that way; just see "Recent changes" for evidence. This >> doesn't make a good impression. >> > We changed CMSes in the past multiple times. (Drupal I don't even recall > any more, but before MediaWiki, it was TikiWiki.) It's _always_ a hassle > - setting up, testing, and, last but not least, content migration. > Besides, the way we use MediaWiki is more or less like a CMS. Some of > the reasons we choose MW was, I think, easy editing (everyone knows how > to edit a wiki), with the thought that an easy way to add content to the > home page would result in some community-driven tutorials, information > etc. over time. (That this now resulted in the spam problem really blows.) > If locking down editing ability (much like in a "classic" CMS) is seen > as The measure against spam, well, that can be done in MediaWiki, too. >
Ok, I haven't known that. So staying with MediaWiki for the time being might be the best option. > There is also a bit of a "division of labor" between the Wikis: the Trac > wiki is more of a "development wiki" were ideas, notes etc. regarding > development are collected. The MediaWiki part, on the other hand, is > more thought for "end-user" content. > It's too bad that both have desireable features which don't overlap > (MediaWiki is somewhat more versatile, but Trac + it's Wiki have the > ability to directly link to SVN revisions, source code etc. which can be > kind of neat - e.g. see the list of changes to merge into 1.4...) > > >> I also wanted to investigate that, especially SDK builds (it is very >> unfortunate that there are no binary SDKs currently, especially on >> Windows where building is not that easy). >> > Really? I always kind of thought building on Windows was comparatively > easy ... no scratching together all dependencies (there's a single > package for that), and either open up the VC project and hit it or, in > case of MinGW, 'configure' etc. (what you have to do with about every > other open source project). > I know some projects/dependencies which are a _much_ bigger hassle to > set up ;p > I was referring to Windows to being a bit of a hassleful build and development environment in general, in comparison to e.g. Linux. For instance I wanted to build CS with MinGW 4.4 (to make it interoperable with Qt, which only builds on gcc 4.x), but read that the binaries in cswin32libs are built with 3.4. Clobbing the sources of the supporting libraries together and building them in Windows is somewhat more tedious in Windows than in Linux (this is my perception, at least - probably because Linux has such a nice shell abd decent handling of shared libraries, but I suspect MSYS can provide roughly the same). Regards, Denis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ Crystal-main mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/crystal-main Unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
