Re: xemacs wiki

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> What we totally need is a real tracker.  My preference is Roundup, and
> that's what I'm working on.  I've already demonstrated that we can
> import our mbox archives wholesale; I need to (1) show that it can
> scale and (2) add some interface sugar so that the massive mess of
> ancient history will not be in people's faces when it goes live.
>

Stephen, I'm with you completely on this.  I have never used Roundup,
but we definitely need some kind of tracking solution, so I think this
is one of the situations where the one who does the work gets to
decide.

>>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Wing <[email protected]> writes:
>
>     Ben> adrian, or someone, would you be willing to set up something
>     Ben> like this? take a look at zshwiki.org.
>
> Case in point.  It's tiny, and in 5 minutes I discovered it's already
> broken from the point of view of "collaborative development", cf.
>
> http://www.zshwiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ZshWanted
>
> The page is supposed to be for questions, but already it is full of
> answers and half answers.  There are other "answer" pages full of
> questions.  People simply cannot stick to the proposed disciplines.

I follow zsh development very closely, and I have been to the wiki
VERY few times.  In fact, I had forgotten it existed before Ben cited
it as an example.  The wiki is certainly not in any way central to zsh
development.

Ben, later in this thread you suggested piggybacking on the emacswiki
- I think that idea makes sense, because we can reap the benefits of
someone else's labor.  I really don't think we'll get much use out of
the wiki, and I certainly don't want to fragment our already scattered
resources to work on something which won't help very much, so I'm
strongly in favor of the low-cost solution.  Ben, I suggest you start
posting XEmacs items to the emacswiki and the rest of the developers
will follow once we see what the true benefit is.

  - vin