in-line :-
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 00:53, jtd <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> These are not bugs by any stretch of imagination. And the wiki is intended to
> operate as you describe. So go ahead and create these wiki pages and call
> it "website hall of shame", "new patent approval", "vendor based syllabus",
> whatever.
> Just dont use buzz words that are totally out of context and convey the wrong
> info.
It would be best for a wiki (something like what mediawiki does) as
editing sub-sections is easier then putting up bugs. It needs a bit
more time and expertize to put up a bug and keep oneself updated with
both the bug status and the priortization both of which could be
subjective or not.
Another point would be a wiki can have versioning while a bug cannot.
Meaning if I enter a bug and some other user accidentally or
maliciously deletes it (for some reason or other) then that bug would
have no trace. The wiki is much transparent in this aspect.
Please, bear in mind if you do take up either of the project it would
entail some significant investment of time at least in the beginning.
--
Regards,
Shirish Agarwal
My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com
065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
