Percious, I guess you haven't really read what I've been saying in this thread. I don't have a problem with Turbogears. I like it just fine. I just want to see the user base grow. And if only 1 in every new 100 users we get actually becomes a contributor, then you're doing good. Furthermore, I do try to help out where I can. I'm not nearly experienced enough to even attempt writing patches for TG, but I spend time everyday on these lists, helping new users where I can. I just spent over 3 hours yesterday trying to bring our very old Wikipedia article up to date in hopes that when new users search out info, they are getting current info about TG2 instead of 1.x. I'd also love to help out with the documentation situation, but the current pull the source and make a patch/diff then submit it to trac as I believe I discussed with you on IRC yesterday afternoon, is a bit too much overhead when someone wants to just jump in and do some tweaks and cleanup. I really wish we were still using a wiki, even though Sphinx is nice to look at.
And I'm sorry if you take the Tosca thing personally, but for many TG users, we are using this very powerful platform because we want to make complex sites. Sites, that the simple widgets Tosca offers just do not cut it for. I use Dojo personally. I just think it would be nice for your end users, if they could read about how to get it going here, rather than having to go to another site. And like Iain said, if you think every end user is going to be also a contributor, you seriously need to get out of your own little fortress of solitude you've been living in. That may be the way open source worked in the 90's, but that's not how we do things today. Your sentiment of disgust is the really distressing thing here, it's the same old way of thinking that keeps holding back open source, and keeps Linux at a 1% user base even though it is far superior OS to anything Apple or Microsoft have to offer :/ On Jun 23, 10:25 am, percious <ch...@percious.com> wrote: > This thread really distresses me. > > The amount of effort that has gone into say what should be done > instead of actually doing it is ludicrous. If you don't like the > direction that TG is taking, participate in a sprint. Write some > docs. Contribute patches. Provide information for the beta site. > Organize a sprint. If you don't have the time, sponsor documentation > changes, hire an intern to work on only-tg stuff... etc. Come hang > out and pester me on the irc channel #turbogears if you'd like to > contribute. 10 minutes or 10 hours, it all makes a difference. > > Everyone who works on TG2 seems to get so battered by everyone when > the devs time to worry about our own lives for a month or two. We all > want TG2 to succeed. There is no doubt in my mind that we have the > right philosopy about the project: Make the simple things easy, make > the hard things possible. Technologies like SQLAlchemy, Genshi, > Pylons, ToscaWidgets and Sprox are your tools. If they don't provide > the ease of use you need, write some, and give it back if you want to > see TG2 head in that direction. > > I think you are completely mistaken about the state of TW. Last count > there were 30 projects available for download related to > TW.http://toscawidgets.org/hg/Many of these are active, and have seen > changes in the last month. There was enough interest in TW alone to > provide a tutorial at pycon, here are the > notes:http://code.google.com/p/pythontutorials/source/browse/presentations/... > . TW wraps over 10 existing javascript libraries, and yes, I do think > this is a good use of TW, and I am excited for the way TW2 handles > this (Google App Engine Support!) http://pajhome.org.uk/tw2/ > > Paul Johnston (author of tw2) is an example of someone who does not > contribute frequently directly to the TG core, contributes quality > material to our peripherals. He too complained that TW docs were > lacking, and then went an wrote > them:http://toscawidgets.org/documentation/tw.forms/ > If all of our users stepped up to the plate like that we'd have no > problems with marketing nor docs. > > As for a standard JS lib. We don't want to pidgin hole ourselves. > The race between JS libs is pretty heated right now, and being able to > support all of them gives us a huge advantage. People like Luke > Macken, Michael Bertoldi, and Johnathan Schemoul contribute a > significant amount of work to this end. I personally support Dojo, > and the new admin has infinitely scrollable tables because of this. > So, we have made a soft choice for you, but it is not difficult to use > whatever you like. > > I agree that unfortunately TG is lacking in marketing, but if we want > to have a viable product, the core team needs to focus on the > technology. With a solid base of functionality, we will find folks > who have the time and resources to provide us with the marketing this > project so sorely needs. > > cheers. > -chris > > On Jun 22, 11:13 am, Derick Eisenhardt <derick.eisenha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Jun 21, 6:31 pm, Jorge Vargas <jorge.var...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > To be honest. I don't like that. Every tool that has taken that > > > approach ends ups being bad. Sure we need to make it as much friendly > > > as possible but I don't want this to become the average idiot tool (no > > > offense really) but I guess I do prefer to aspire to "the best of us" > > > recently someone send me this quote. > > > > "This users are idiots, confused by functionality" mentality is a > > > disease.Think users are idiots? Only idiots will use it" Linus > > > Torvalds > > > > So please please don't read me as "elitist" read me as "best of breed" > > > both in components and users. > > > I have to disagree. For some reason many people seem to think that you > > have to choose between being user friendly to newbies or powerful for > > the experienced. You CAN make both parties happy. Also, I know you > > intended not to sound "elitist" but talking about "best of breed > > users" and that idiot quote from Linus do not help your cause. > > Assuming someone is an idiot just because they are inexperienced is > > just about the best way to make yourself sound elitist. :/ > > > I'm not saying it has to be "designed for idiots" ...but there are > > currently too many assumptions of prior/external knowledge assumed in > > the documentation. This is what I was trying to get at. Let me go > > ahead and reiterate...I love Turbogears, and I have nothing but > > respect and gratitude for everyone who has worked so hard to give us > > this wonderful platform. But, we are limitting our user base if you > > assume your users already know some of these things. > > > Let's think of it in a usage scenario, generic new user Bob has been > > developing PHP sites for years, but has decided it's time to check out > > one of these new MVC frameworks all his friends are so crazy about. He > > looks at Ruby on Rails and Django, since they are 2 of the most well > > known first, then he stumbles across Turbogears and likes some of the > > stuff he sees. But being as he has no previous Python experience, when > > he looks at the tutorials and docs he becomes quickly confused by > > certain parts of the language that he is unfamiliar with. Yes, he > > could always go do his own independent research, but it would be so > > much easier, and make him love TG that much more if there was just a > > paragraph or two mixed in with the current new user docs to help him > > get past those hurdles without having to search elsewhere. > > > I know for me personally, I've had to search out many of my questions > > on Pylons, SQLAlchemy and other's websites because there was something > > not documented on the TG site. The whole purpose of a project like > > Turbogears is to take all the disparate parts and combine them into > > one cohesive whole. > > > And this brings me to the JS/widget discussion... > > > If TG were to have a preferred/default JS library it's not that users > > would be required to use it, it's just that it would be made easy to > > use and be documented here. If someone wanted to use a different > > toolkit they'd always be free to use whatever they like, they would > > just have to research it's use elsewhere rather than on the TG site. > > > I look at Turbogears like the web development equivalent of a Linux > > distribution. There are all these parts out there one can take and > > glue together, but the distribution takes them all and glues them > > together for you so you don't have to. Also in the same metaphor you > > could look at as Pylons is like the Debian to Turbogears' Ubuntu. > > > This is really how we should be treating documentation and bugs. If a > > bug is found in Turbogears that is a result of one of your upstream > > components, let's say SQLA for example. You shouldn't mark the bug as > > "won't fix/invalid" and tell the user, "sorry...that's an SQLAlchemy > > bug, not our problem". You should keep the bug open here, and mark it > > as dependent on a corresponding bug on the SQLA site. Once SQLA fixes > > the bug, then the bug can also be closed here. This is really the kind > > of things I think could turn this from a really good project, to a > > great project ;) > > > I also want to reiterate I understand and very much appreciate that > > all of you are working on TG pro bono. I really hope one day someone > > can find a way to make TG development into a full time job, as that > > will probably be what it takes for things to really go to the next > > level. Thanks again guys ;) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to turbogears-trunk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
