Log message #587111

# At Username Text
# Mar 12th 2009, 10:03 _nate_ hah
# Mar 12th 2009, 10:02 ADmad yes but i like cake to do my work for me :P
# Mar 12th 2009, 10:02 jperras and it's not difficult to implement a custom rule to do the deep check yourself
# Mar 12th 2009, 10:02 jperras exactly
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:59 _nate_ this is a Bad Thing
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:59 _nate_ the thoroughness of your validation actually changes from platform to platform
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:59 ADmad grr...
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:59 _nate_ ADmad: because then you get inconsistent validation results
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:58 ADmad dont see why majority have to suffer for a small minority who use windoze
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:57 ADmad jperras: regarding the e-mail validation ticket you closed, why cant be simple use "function_exists" and use getmxrr if available ?
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:54 alkemann laters
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:54 alkemann well i gotta go do something as antigeek as going to the gym to work out.. /sigh
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:53 ADmad yeah
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:52 alkemann wobbly bits?
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:49 alkemann poof
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:48 ADmad its give no more info than what api already does
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:48 ADmad this crap should be definately deleted http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/filling-a-select-with-tree-behavoir
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:47 alkemann i havent looked at existing articles, but if ur opening that door jperras... ;)
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:47 ADmad so i sort of like the idea of markers but i am not entirely sold... would be nice maybe as a feature enhancement on a later date
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:47 ADmad )
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:46 alkemann i gave improvement feedback on 3 and published 2 :)
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:45 ADmad hehe.. dont get too trigger happy :P
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:45 alkemann moved a few from the "pending" to "deleted" today ;)
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:45 ADmad ACTION claps
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:44 alkemann ADmad: also im a moderator of current bakery now
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:44 jperras started with a few yesterday
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:44 alkemann so this moderation tool is a concept motivated by the wish to increase quality
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:44 ADmad *hear
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:44 ADmad nice to year
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:44 jperras fyi, I'm going on a retro-active bakery 1.0 article purge. all those unworthy will be given the chance to improve their codez, or will be unpublished.
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:43 alkemann yes
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:43 ADmad err the earlier statement isnt well formed but i think you get the idea
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:42 ADmad so the lowering of bar is taken care of
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:42 ADmad the reason articles of unacceptable quality is a single moderation approves which wont be the case in 2.0... so even if say you hold very high standards and vote 2 for it others might vote 4 and its published :)
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:40 alkemann it can tie in to the social aspekt of community owned article nicely
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:39 alkemann yes, but this added feature is a result of the wishes of .. well having a lower bar than what you and I might want for authors contribution, but also making an effort to increase quality
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:38 ADmad *so if it
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:38 ADmad plus we already have a system of an article getting particular amounts of votes to get published... so i it isnt good enough i wouldnt vote for it any way
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:37 alkemann i agree, but..
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:37 ADmad ok.. personally i would prefer a article to be improved to an acceptable level and then simply published.. many times the avg. reader isnt smart enough to properly interpret the markers..
# Mar 12th 2009, 09:35 alkemann thats a use case. lets say an article has valuable ideas, but the author hasnt expressed them well or implemented it good. it could be published as inspiration to others, but marked properly so people doesnt take it as canon