On 11 Mar 18:25, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
"isotests" is a good name imho. well, almost. the app is not only about iso's but also about images for usb/pxe. so maybe "testbuild-feedback" but then that's not really clear it's about releng stuff, and "releng-testbuild-feedback" is a bit verbose. maybe "RTF" (acronym for the latter) ?, maybe you guys can come up with something good.
Well isotests is the best I can come up with, I think. I kinda like rtf personally.
The only thing we need is a way to limit the list of iso's on the "add" page to current ones. (like, only display the most recent 20). If you also want a page where you just give a plain list of reports, you should limit it to the 100 most recent or something. Anything else (explicit marking as inactive, pruning old reports,...) sounds like YAGNI to me.
That sounds reasonable.
Any question which can be easily answered by a person who wants to add a report, but not by a spam bot. captchas are generally considered unpleasant by visitors, regular questions are more acceptable. (and they are probably easier for you as well)
Yes probably, but maybe not as interesting. But you're right, people probably don't like captchas (I don't really like them).
"must be verified, like forum logins" => this is called authentication. But I'm not sure how exactly you want to authenticate them. "simple single-click verification" ? How would that work?
No I only mean like how forums and other kinds of websites verify email addresses. You send an email to the address they sent and the test results they have entered don't become valid until they click the link in the email to prove that they might actually exist. It was just an idea and not one I thought users might be thrilled about, but I'm guessing not many spambots will respond to such things and I'm also guessing people will get easily annoyed and won't bother this way. Single click was just me trying to explain the process: User enters data, server sends email to entered address, user clicks link in email and server knows the user is more likely to be a real person trying to help improve the community. I dunno, probably not a good idea...
Yes, a wiki is version controlled, you must have misunderstood me.
Yeah, sorry, that's why I asked :-)
I prefer maintaining documentation in git and "agile"-style deployments (where I can easily update the code on the server in a reliable way) If that's not possible (or too much work to setup), then a wiki is the next best thing. "next best", and not "best" because git >> mediawiki versioning, cli/vim >> webinterface and I prefer the page to be integrated (both visually, and by its url) with the app. Maintaining this on the wiki is not my preference, but I can live with it.
Ok got it, thanks.