 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymous org> schreef in bericht
news:4c4bfe7a$1@news.povray.org...
> Operating the "preview" button is really simple, and I promise it won't
> bite you.
Bit bites are nasty, though.... :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/25/2010 5:05 AM, clipka wrote:
> As far as I can see, disk space has never been mentioned in that
> discussion.
That was the reason that was implied, yes: "Each time you save a file
you create an entirely new document in the database. Granted it's
generally text and low-ish overhead..."
> There are more reasons than just disk space to ask that you
> keep the number of Wiki page revisions low; for instance it reduces the
> effort needed to review changes.
Not mentioned anywhere.
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/07/2010 02:46, SharkD wrote:
>> There are more reasons than just disk space to ask that you
>> keep the number of Wiki page revisions low; for instance it reduces the
>> effort needed to review changes.
>
> Not mentioned anywhere.
I suppose we didn't anticipate the need to mention something that we
considered to be common sense.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2010-07-26 12:55, Chris Cason wrote:
> On 27/07/2010 02:46, SharkD wrote:
>>> There are more reasons than just disk space to ask that you
>>> keep the number of Wiki page revisions low; for instance it reduces the
>>> effort needed to review changes.
>>
>> Not mentioned anywhere.
>
> I suppose we didn't anticipate the need to mention something that we
> considered to be common sense.
>
> -- Chris
Wikis don't take much space, and 10kb of text (for a large page) is
really not much in the database after all. But when you have someone who
doesn't use the preview button and ends up committing 59 revisions in
which they change one word each time, it can add up. It also clutters
the Recent Changes page, making it harder for the moderators to see what
has really been changed.
I'm a sysop on a wiki for a game mod, and I can tell you from personal
experience that it gets very irritating to look at the changes list and
see that one page was edited 37 times within 10 minutes by the same
person (real example). We're also having problems with people not
knowing how to use the Comment field, and ending up with hundreds of
edits with no description that require manually viewing the diff.
Sorry, not really contributing here, just an anecdote.
Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/26/2010 03:39 PM, CShake wrote:
> I'm a sysop on a wiki for a game mod, and I can tell you from personal
> experience that it gets very irritating to look at the changes list and
> see that one page was edited 37 times within 10 minutes by the same
> person (real example).
thanks ... my point exactly!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/25/2010 10:00 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> ha-ha ... He knows that! Just looking for a cage to rattle I guess (in
> best Dana Carvey as church lady voice) ... "Now isn't that just special" ;-)
>
Your remarks don't jibe too well for someone who purportedly is looking
for people to contribute by editing the wiki.
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.07.2010 18:46, schrieb SharkD:
> On 7/25/2010 5:05 AM, clipka wrote:
>> As far as I can see, disk space has never been mentioned in that
>> discussion.
>
> That was the reason that was implied, yes: "Each time you save a file
> you create an entirely new document in the database. Granted it's
> generally text and low-ish overhead..."
Well, that's the reason /you/ implied. The quote doesn't support it
though: "Granted it's generally text and low-ish overhead", implies that
space is /not/ the primary issue.
>> There are more reasons than just disk space to ask that you
>> keep the number of Wiki page revisions low; for instance it reduces the
>> effort needed to review changes.
>
> Not mentioned anywhere.
Yeah, that's life: Sometimes people don't tell you the reason why they
want you to do something, for instance because they think it's obvious.
Why not calm down, think it over, and just cooperate instead of trying
to argue your way around it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Since the POV-Ray team is hurting so much for disk space, maybe we should
> close some of the groups?
Even if space was a concern, the groups contain just as valuable information
as the wiki and certainly should not be deleted. In the past various
requests for extra hardware seem to have been fulfilled very quickly from
the community.
> Maybe off-topic?
IIRC off-topic threads aren't stored for very long on the server, compared
to the other groups where everything is kept forever.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/26/2010 11:34 PM, SharkD wrote:
> On 7/25/2010 10:00 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> ha-ha ... He knows that! Just looking for a cage to rattle I guess (in
>> best Dana Carvey as church lady voice) ... "Now isn't that just
>> special" ;-)
>>
>
> Your remarks don't jibe too well for someone who purportedly is looking
> for people to contribute by editing the wiki.
>
>
You know ... I was just trying to approach the issue with a bit of humor
(didn't you notice the smiley), as nothing seems to work with you. Even
after the ongoing discussion in this thread you seem unwilling to come
close to anything that even resembles cooperation. Multiple edits (and
now multiple moves) of documents within minutes of each change all for
the sake of a couple of characters in most cases, that's just plain
unproductive clutter for someone trying to forge ahead with a project.
So knock yourself out ... I'll just start ignoring ANYTHING with your
username attached to it ... as a matter of fact, was wondering why I'm
even wasting my time replying to this thread (shrugs)
Peace Out
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] povrayorg> schreef in bericht
news:4c4eb430$1@news.povray.org...
> You know ... I was just trying to approach the issue with a bit of humor
> (didn't you notice the smiley), as nothing seems to work with you. Even
> after the ongoing discussion in this thread you seem unwilling to come
> close to anything that even resembles cooperation. Multiple edits (and
> now multiple moves) of documents within minutes of each change all for
> the sake of a couple of characters in most cases, that's just plain
> unproductive clutter for someone trying to forge ahead with a project.
> So knock yourself out ... I'll just start ignoring ANYTHING with your
> username attached to it ... as a matter of fact, was wondering why I'm
> even wasting my time replying to this thread (shrugs)
>
I am not familiar with working with wiki, so forgive my ignorance, but I
thought indeed that when composing/editting a document, even a simple one,
one should do that off-line until a final state is reached to one's own
satisfaction, and only then upload that to the wiki, or whatever other
media. I have done a lot of writing in my life, mostly scientific, and I
would never have made concept documents available to anyone on any media,
except to those few individuals whith whom I wanted to discuss details. So,
I agree with the Jims on this issue. I think one has to follow a standard
procedure in this and be utterly reluctant to upload unfinished concepts.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
