Noel J. Bergman ha scritto: > Danny Angus wrote: > >> Noel J. Bergman wrote: >>> you seem to be implying that the news items would be committed >>> without review, and then changed if necessary. I'm not >>> considering that to be a proper practice, even if we can change >>> them later. > >> It may not be "proper practice" in your opinion but it is what we >> have always done > > I seem to recall that at least initially, we did review on dev@ the > announcements that we would subsequently post to user@, until they basically > became boilerplate updates. That's what I'm talking about. Are we talking > about different things? > > --- Noel
Disclaimer: I don't know what you did before 2006. Here what we did after: I personally wrote at least a few mailing list announcements without "review" (I mostly use a template for them). I also always updated the news directly (the same apply to Norman, IIRC). Some times Danny and other helped in fixing my english, otherwise the bad english is still there. As I previously said, most time we published a news it was a direct result of an action item voted (a new release, a website change, a new sub-project/product). Maybe a good approach would be to include the announcement text and the news text in the vote content, but maybe this is an unwanted complication and CTR is preferred (at least by me). The only news we had with no vote is "Feb/2007 - Feathercast features James", and I'm very happy Danny added it: this is the kind of news we are missing and the kind of news I would like to see submitted using CTR. For release news the current solution already worked perfectly (to make a release you already have to do most steps and most time you have anyway to build the maven website for that release). IMHO this is the de facto JAMES procedure: if you think it is a bad practice I suggest you writing a proposal (even a short one) so that we can discuss it (outside from this thread) and if needed change it. Stefano
