Stephen,
I think you are being a wee bit critical here... Personally, I'd prefer
that not just anyone can edit the wiki pages - but those who have either
proven themselves to the project or have submitted something that's been
vetted by the project owners. I've got a few projects and I certainly
don't want just anyone to be able to modify whatever they "deem"
appropriate.
Honestly, I'd argue the same for people wanting to contribute code -
should everyone just be able to checkin their work? Its open source - by
virtue its community driven...
Seems reasonable to have checks and balances - even with
documentation.
I'm sure the good folks at this project will consider any
suggestions/contributions you may desire...
I could be overly sensitive here - but your post came across harsh and
unless I am wrong, I've not heard many people complaining about this
issue...
Sorry - I'm pretty protective of this project... I don't contribute any
code, sometimes I jump in and answer questions...but I love Ant and this
community and will voice my opinion when I feel its been judged harshly...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, Stephen L. De Rudder wrote:
By my definition of wiki it should allow all users to edit any page or to
create a new page. Oh, that also happens to be Ward Cunningham's definition,
and he created the first wiki and defined it that way. Oh, merriam-webster.com
also agrees with my definition. I realize that your definition of wiki may be
different, and I am not trying to get into a I am right your wrong (there is
plenty of room for different interpretations). In my opinion a wiki should
allow all users to edit and create pages and if it doesn't it shouldn't be
called a wiki. I also understand that it may be a wiki (by my definition) to a
select group of people that could be made available (as a non-wiki) for a
larger group of people. To the larger group of people it should be called
something else. Maybe if enough people research it and come of with my
interpretation of the definition of wiki then maybe consider renaming it (or
not). Regardless it would be nice to have a publicly editable site for contr
ibutors like me to contribute to (besides this mailing list). SLDR(Stephen L. De
Rudder)> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:30:32 -0400
Subject: Re: ANT Wiki isn't wiki
From: j...@attardi.net
To: user@ant.apache.org
A wiki doesn't have to be publicly editable to be a wiki. Wikipedia may
operate like that, but there are plenty of projects whose wikis are only
editable by registered users.
On Apr 15, 2012 6:32 PM, "Stephen L. De Rudder" <sld...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The ant wiki isn't a wiki. It seems like most if not all the pages can not
be modified by anonymous contributers. Please don't call it a wiki if
people are not allowed to contribute. I wanted to add a page about the OS
condition tag, but I couldn't. The manual only goes into detail about the
<OS family="xxx"> stuff but ignores the name, arch, and version. It took me
a while but I found that those seem to be populated from the java
properties os.name, os.arch, and os.version. I think others could have
benifited from my research if your wiki was a wiki. SLDR(Stephen L. De
Rudder) I can't complain too much, the company I work for created a public
wiki too. They do allow paying maintence and support customers to request
access so they can contribute to the wiki (none to my knoledge have). After
enough complaining (mostly be me) we are about to remove the wiki and
rollout an expanded faq/blog site.
Scot P. Floess RHCT (Certificate Number 605010084735240)
Chief Architect FlossWare http://sourceforge.net/projects/flossware
http://flossware.sourceforge.net
https://github.com/organizations/FlossWare
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@ant.apache.org
