| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 11:04 |
AD7six |
like the comments :) |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 11:03 |
ADmad |
_nate_: teknoid stole your snippet about blacklist and made a post :) http://teknoid.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/blacklist-your-model-fields-for-save/ |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:14 |
alkemann |
well im gonna go wish my grandma a happy birthday. laters :) |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:02 |
AD7six |
I only found out when replies showed up including mariano_iglesias's messages after my pm |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:02 |
AD7six |
I think I was pm-ing users that mariano had already contacted previously |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:02 |
jperras |
just to prevent the same author from being bombarded by several moderators at the same time |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:02 |
jperras |
ok |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:02 |
AD7six |
I think it didn't used to but got fixed jperras |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:02 |
gwoo |
yes |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:02 |
gwoo |
jperras: all moderators |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:01 |
jperras |
gwoo: does that show up for all? |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:01 |
alkemann |
moderators can see all author PMs? |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:01 |
gwoo |
then they have not been contacted |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:01 |
gwoo |
jperras: if there is no author PM |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:01 |
gwoo |
but i want the policy to stay the same |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:01 |
jperras |
I don't think there is currently a way of determining if an author has already been contacted by a moderator, iirc. |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 10:01 |
gwoo |
good |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:59 |
alkemann |
i am willing to put my $ where my mouth is yes |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:58 |
gwoo |
mariano_iglesias: can make you a publishe=r |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:58 |
gwoo |
alkemann: you want to take over that job? |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:58 |
gwoo |
yes, and mariano_iglesias usually does a good job of that |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:56 |
alkemann |
the "nice" part of my argument is that if moderators explain what an author could do to improve it, in many cases they would |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:56 |
AD7six |
alkemann: I don't know what you're expecting me to say, I don't see this conversation going anywhere |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:55 |
alkemann |
AD7six: how fair will it be to let people publish their articles now, and in a month or two when bakery 2.0 goes online, their articles are cut? |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:54 |
AD7six |
oh I don't disagree (more importantly I don't disagree with your overall point) - but I don't think the overall policy should change until bakery 2. |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:53 |
AD7six |
there hasn't been a specific change of policy |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:53 |
alkemann |
by proxy, cake core team supports all bakery articles, it's important to have QA even if some authors feels they have "done enough" |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:53 |
AD7six |
"why is my article held back wanting xyz when there are so many already published without it" |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:53 |
AD7six |
alkemann: there are n (where n is a big number) of articles that authors refer to to know what to do |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:52 |
alkemann |
AD7six: i dont understand relevance of fairness |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:52 |
jperras |
context is important |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:52 |
jperras |
alkemann: I think that's a reasonable requirement, yes. |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:52 |
AD7six |
e.g. the xml tree helper - what's unclear about its objective |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:52 |
AD7six |
alkemann: I don't think with the current bakery it's necessary to be overly strict - it seems unfair to the authors |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:52 |
alkemann |
jperras: i meant : should provide clear explanations of the article's objective, and how that objective is achieved. |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:51 |
jperras |
alkemann: that requirement is a little difficult to fulfill, since there can easily be some overlap between two posts, yet their content/implementation may be different |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:50 |
alkemann |
last two part sorta supports my wish for some flesh around the code bits |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:48 |
alkemann |
what about "The topic should be of interest to a broad range of CakePHP developers. It should not have already been covered by another article and should provide clear explanations of the article's objective, and how that objective is achieved." |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:46 |
alkemann |
but that's neither here nor there |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:45 |
alkemann |
AD7six: currently the bakery states that all code must follow the https://trac.cakephp.org/wiki/Developement/CodingStandards - i bet you I could kill most the articles I dont "like" with this (existing) rule ;) |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:39 |
AD7six |
the recent foo articles is a different point for me |