| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 15:03 |
teknoid |
alkemann: i completely agree with you, but i don't think we should discourage community participation by being "too tough", hence the ranking the system will come in quite handy... the code itself (in that article) was decent, imho |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 15:03 |
alkemann |
teknoid: so yes, basically i think you're too nice :) unfortunatly it's a character trait i dont have :/ |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 15:02 |
alkemann |
api will be required in the next version of bakery, but there is a convention of at least including examples in the current one |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 15:01 |
alkemann |
teknoid: if you think the code is worth sharing, you can still request the author to spend some time writing a worthwhile article to go along with it |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 15:00 |
alkemann |
also the article states that there are currently many such helpers in existing, but doesnt discuss why this one is worth sharing or doing. whats different, how is this better? |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 15:00 |
ADmad |
its bascially 1 line of code which is already mentioned in manual |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 15:00 |
teknoid |
alkeman: that's a tough decision... i looked at the code and it seemed "decent" ... guess, i'm too nice... |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:59 |
ADmad |
this is crap too http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/maintain-url-arguments-while-paginating |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:59 |
alkemann |
starts* |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:59 |
alkemann |
"The code should explain it self" stats the tab helper article. well it doesnt, and it shouldnt. |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:58 |
alkemann |
bakery shouldnt be just place to paste some code. we got paste bin for that |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:58 |
alkemann |
in my oppinion all the 5 articles that are currently on Latest code are ... not good enough |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:57 |
teknoid |
yep |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:56 |
alkemann |
did u approve this http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/tabhelper ? |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:55 |
teknoid |
hiya |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:55 |
alkemann |
hey teknoid |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:23 |
alkemann |
goody |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:19 |
jperras |
should have something to show by tomorrow |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:18 |
jperras |
I'm going to be starting the wireframes this evening based on the use cases in the chaw wiki |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:16 |
alkemann |
heh excited is good |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:15 |
jperras |
now I'm getting all math-geek excited :P |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:15 |
jperras |
actually, the ratings are most likely going to be a biased normal distribution, since the articles will need to be rated positively a few times before they even get published |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:12 |
jperras |
not overly clever, but quite stable and numerically simple to calculate |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:11 |
alkemann |
hehe. i see you |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:11 |
jperras |
with some tweaking for temporal effects |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:11 |
jperras |
rating is probably going to be the lower bound of a 95% confidence interval on the approximated normal distribution of the ratings |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:10 |
jperras |
haha |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:09 |
alkemann |
ok i guess u get to figure out some clever math? :p |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 |
jperras |
(read as in past tense, "I read the post") |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 |
jperras |
I agree with the '1 rating' |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 |
jperras |
alkemann: read the wiki post |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 |
gwoo |
some purge would be good |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 |
gwoo |
yeah |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:04 |
alkemann |
gwoo: about existing bakery and article. i assume we want to take some. are we going to take all? might be a good opppertunity for a purge. what sense in having strict quality rules if we start out with a lot of sub par. |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:01 |
alkemann |
would still need a system of x amount of votes and at least one moderator or higher though |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:00 |
alkemann |
yea that could work |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 |
gwoo |
it goes live |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 |
gwoo |
and if the bakers rate the article >= 4 |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 |
gwoo |
so "bakers" get to rate the article before the "public" |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 |
gwoo |
and would make things simpler |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:57 |
gwoo |
actually 1 rating might work |