| # |
Mar 12th 2009, 10:03 |
ADmad |
i blame cake for making me lazy |
| # |
Mar 12th 2009, 10:03 |
_nate_ |
only one platform does all your work for you |
| # |
Mar 12th 2009, 10:03 |
_nate_ |
therein lies the problem |
| # |
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 |