There is only really one main thing I would like to see changed about the cookbook. That is the way proposals are forever hidden from me after I initially post them. Being abel to not only add, but edit and update a section not yet approved would make it easier for us outsiders to contribute. At least sections that I added myself. Also I have no idea if 10 others have written unapproved sections on the same topic and I am not aware of any mechanism the reviewers can use to provide feedback and request changes from authors. Since the review process can take a while these thing could help distribute the workload and result in higher quality content sooner.
/Martin On May 13, 7:25 am, nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On May 12, 1:15 pm, Aaron Shafovaloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I propose that the Cake team use MediaWiki with the FlaggedRevs > > extension (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs) > > instead of their homegrown wiki, which currently has a closed review > > process. > > Sorry, I wasn't aware that this was up for public discussion.... > because usually we leave these sorts of decisions to people who are > actually, you know, doing the work. > > Quite a while ago, John and I decided that what we have would be the > best solution, based on his requirements. It's still a work-in- > progress, but it works and it'll continue to improve. > > > This extension, which will be integrated into Wikipedia in > > the coming months, allows for people to edit the draft of a page, and > > for users with a special privilege of "reviewer" to tweak and approve > > and even rate the proposed changes. > > The coming months? How about we put something together ourselves in > the coming weeks, or hell, days. It is Cake after all. Shouldn't be > too hard assuming we can find the time. Which of course is always the > trick. > > > - Outsiders could see not only the default last-reviewed page, but > > also see the proposed changes. The process would be more open. > > > - People could engage in MediaWik-style discussions that are attached > > to a page. > > > - Instead of a progressive chapter breakdown of the content, I would > > hope that the Cake team would allow for larger pages to split into > > specific topical pages. I also propose using a more comprehensive > > front page for the wiki, which would have a handy taxonomy of links to > > those simply using the wiki as a reference guide. This would be much > > more intuitive than the current menu on the Cookbook. > > > - The efSyntaxHighlight_GeSHiSetup MediaWiki extension could be used > > to prettify code. > > All this stuff is pretty simple to add when it comes down to it. The > content is already organized in the database in a very granular way, > so the display could easily be formatted differently. > > > - The CakePHP team wouldn't have to bother maintaining/improving > > their home-made wiki application. MediaWiki is a great wiki project > > that continues to grow and be improved. Wikipedia uses it, so it's not > > likely at all that the application development would go inactive. > > *Or*, we could turn it into a reference application for people > learning the framework. > > > - MediaWiki's template can be customized to the liking of the CakePHP > > team. > > The problem comes when the specific needs diverge beyond what > "template customization" allows. > > > I also propose that the Cookbook be put under a Creative Commons > > license, but I hear that this is already forthcoming. > > The Cookbook code or the Cookbook content? The Cookbook code is going > to be released under the MIT license, the same as Cake itself. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CakePHP" group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
