[pmwiki-users] Recipe stability

[noskule]

Patrick R. Michaud schrieb:
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:19:42PM +0200, kjettil wrote:
>   
>> My assessment of ZAP is now clear - thanks to the contributions over the 
>> last 36 hours! But normally, it's a time consuming process to find out 
>> which ones are in the rough.
>>     
>
> I agree that it is very difficult to split the cookbook into
> "stable" versus "beta" groups, and it would also be difficult
> to move them from one group to another.
>
> This is also why we have the "Status:" line for each recipe.
>
> This does bring up another thought...  as opposed to having 
> "ratings" or "voting" on recipes [1], what if we called them 
> "endorsements"?  
>
> [1]  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.wiki.pmwiki.user/41611
>
> Pm
>
>
>   
personaly I'm not convinced about rating, cause what exactly are the 
criteria of that rating? I'like it/don't like is pretty subjectiv. 
Different needs needs different solutions, and that cant be expresst 
with numbers from 0..5. So if there are 2 solutions one with 4 and one 
with 5, which solution users choose?

What I would prefer is a set of extensions that have a status like 
"reviewd". This extensions should meet a set of (to define) criteria like:

* meet a security standard (1)
* compatible to each other (2)
* no double solution for the exactly same

1)think of the zap security issue  at the moment.  When the code is 
reviewd from pm and other programmers authors optimize there code and 
all get convinced that extension could get the status "inner-circle" 

2) small example, if I chose e-mailprotect and generatepdf, my email are 
protected on the website but didn't display in the pdf output. Nice 
would be  a mechanism that  minimises that try and erroor process a bit

grz nos
> _______________________________________________
> pmwiki-users mailing list
> pmwiki-users at pmichaud.com
> http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
>
>