AW: [Phpwiki-talk] Re: Wiki spam and the future of phpwiki

[Daimonin M. <in...@da...>]

> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: php...@li...=20
> [mailto:php...@li...] Im Auftrag=20
> von Matthew Palmer
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. April 2005 19:01
> An: php...@li...
> Betreff: [Phpwiki-talk] Re: Wiki spam and the future of phpwiki
>=20
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 10:17:16AM +0200, Manuel VACELET wrote:
> > Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
> > >I think we must find a different dev/commit model to attract more=20
> > >developpers and ... keep us working on phpwiki ... Should we have=20
> > >several cvs/svn trees and decide on a process to merge=20
> them every ...
> > >week ? Or have several cvs branches ? Should Reini or Steve give=20
> > >write access to any/more contributors ?
> >=20
> > I think opening a svn repository for phpwiki is a good thing. With=20
> > https access everyone can access to source code (even if=20
> you are barbarian proxy).
>=20
> /me does a little dance and sings "arch, arch, arch arch!"
>=20
> If you're truly and deeply engrossed with SVN, at least run=20
> svk and give people half a chance.

As now a OS project leader for some 3 years i think you guys just =
steping
here
in a very dangerous trap.

The problem is of course not the dev/commit model. If so, why then most =
of
the
other projects using it have no problems? I come from a mmorpg game and =
we
commit
code, art, content and even music. Adding patches & doing bug hunting. =
And
it works.

With more and more complex system like svn, gnu arch or whatever you =
will
fix nothing.
Beside the fact, that without a base like sourceforge with it resources =
all
this stuff
is useless. The work to maintain it by yourself will eat up every =
positiv
effect easily.
Any system, even source safe would be good enough. It has absolut no =
impact
on the issues
you mentioned before. Sorry.

Your arguments are really the arguments of computer specialist and =
freaks.
I mean that in a absolut friendly way, iam itself one.

All the problems you described here has a simple source:
You lake the stable enduser base. Using the phpwiki in one, broad base.

The problems seems the feedback loop between you (the project) and your
users.

Sorry to say but: You can add as many features like you want, or =
backends or
whatever.
There are tons of wiki systems out and many of them are good and kick in =
new
features all the time. You can't overcome them. In this way you can only
swim with the
rest of the swarm, one under many.

If you don't find a your own unique way what makes you atractive for =
your
users and=20
others, then you has a problem.

I mentioned to focus on a (easy to do) flawless interface for postnuke
(phpnuke should
work then too because they are very common in some ways). That would =
open a
door which
gives the whole project a new position without changing it really. You =
will
just allow
people to come to the project (the *many* people demanding and searching =
a
working wiki
for their CMS).=20

They will come with new ideas, patches and code. It always works in that
way, thats=20
the way open source projects works like.