SAKryukov
Joined 23 November 2020
Plurality coherence :-) |
Revision control is poorly applicable to Wikimedia talks |
||
| Line 604: | Line 604: | ||
::::::::::::::::::::: Okay, probably we understand how such posts conflict. Now, "revision control in talk pages doesn't seem to make as much sense as revision control in the actual articles"? No, I think you are not right. 1) In the present situation, there is no difference between articles and talks, so revision control would be equally useful. 2) In better situation, say, on GitHub where wiki is fundamentally integrated, the talk looks "more talkative", much closer to the chat software, which is much more usable: people are not working at the same document. Instead, each post goes in a separate section, everything is automatic, you don't have to do these very annoying indents, and yet it's quite apparent which comment you are commenting. And when people work at the same document, this is just a work at a file, no matter if this is a wiki or any other file, same revision-controlled behavior. Also, there are no special "Talk" pages, which is also very good. Instead, a discussion can be opened on every event, first of all, a commit pushed to the central repository. A commit, release, tag, some action, but not a file. This is very logical: what we discuss? Not a file itself, but rather a decision: adding a bunch of tiles, changing them, a request, and so on. It absolutely cannot prevent any free discussions. Say, you request some approval from members for the decision affecting others? Okay, we discuss it first, then decide together. It is not related to actual permissions, we can use different permission policies, from a very free one to a very strict. Mediawiki is great, simple but just overly generalized, maybe oversimplified: the concept of Talk is no different from an article, so we don't have chat-specific features, so this is not so convenient in first place. Maybe you simply need to look at such systems where wiki is integrated with revision control, then you would have a better feel of it. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 08:03 UTC'' | ::::::::::::::::::::: Okay, probably we understand how such posts conflict. Now, "revision control in talk pages doesn't seem to make as much sense as revision control in the actual articles"? No, I think you are not right. 1) In the present situation, there is no difference between articles and talks, so revision control would be equally useful. 2) In better situation, say, on GitHub where wiki is fundamentally integrated, the talk looks "more talkative", much closer to the chat software, which is much more usable: people are not working at the same document. Instead, each post goes in a separate section, everything is automatic, you don't have to do these very annoying indents, and yet it's quite apparent which comment you are commenting. And when people work at the same document, this is just a work at a file, no matter if this is a wiki or any other file, same revision-controlled behavior. Also, there are no special "Talk" pages, which is also very good. Instead, a discussion can be opened on every event, first of all, a commit pushed to the central repository. A commit, release, tag, some action, but not a file. This is very logical: what we discuss? Not a file itself, but rather a decision: adding a bunch of tiles, changing them, a request, and so on. It absolutely cannot prevent any free discussions. Say, you request some approval from members for the decision affecting others? Okay, we discuss it first, then decide together. It is not related to actual permissions, we can use different permission policies, from a very free one to a very strict. Mediawiki is great, simple but just overly generalized, maybe oversimplified: the concept of Talk is no different from an article, so we don't have chat-specific features, so this is not so convenient in first place. Maybe you simply need to look at such systems where wiki is integrated with revision control, then you would have a better feel of it. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 08:03 UTC'' | ||
::::::::::::::::::::: And, as you often say, for a record: I do not use any revision control for my talks on this site (more exactly, I do have some repository, but this is more of a TODO collection). If revision control is not well integrated, the trade-off between efforts and the usefulness is not so good. With real articles, the story is totally different: I developed a pretty big publishing system, worked as a contributor for the Microsoft Visual Studio Code (in contrast to bulky Visual Studio, brilliant editor and IDE: open-source, multi-platform, very light weight). I easily adopt any article project to any reasonable requirements, always work on revision control, and almost never use any online editors. But then this approach helps me to push an article to the publication pretty much in a single shop. For a talk with its small posts, it would be way to much bothering... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 08:32 UTC'' | |||
::::::::: Also, only today I faced the problem with sound degraded with time, don't know how to reproduce; this problem was never exposed with the rest of the applications based on the same synthesis engine. That problem may take time... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 00:01 UTC'' | ::::::::: Also, only today I faced the problem with sound degraded with time, don't know how to reproduce; this problem was never exposed with the rest of the applications based on the same synthesis engine. That problem may take time... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 00:01 UTC'' | ||