[geeklog-users] Much ado about nothing?

[Dirk Haun]

Peter Hopfgartner <hopfgartner at rolmail.net> wrote:

>1) Which developments are currently happenening? I don't know. You keep
>it for yourself. I mean, I have some responsibility for my customers and
>I have to take some decisions for what they will have in some months.

We have a list of bugs and feature requests (currently still listed on
the sourceforge project pages), some of which will be addressed with
future releases. There is no grand plan for this - things that are
requested often and can be implemented with a reasonable amount of work
will be implemented, others may have to wait for Geeklog 2.

Unless, of course, someone is willing to contribute code. That has
happened occassionally in the past: Tom Willet supplied the categorized
links section, Blaine Lang greatly improved error handling on the
database backup page, etc.

I have to admit that, yes, too much communication has been going on on
closed lists in the past. That happened just out of convenience, since we
had a list for communication that wasn't intersparsed with requests for
help on installation. As has been said before, we're going to change
that. Feel free to start development-related discussions on geeklog-
devtalk now. We're also planning to post daily digests of geeklog-devel
to geeklog-devtalk (doesn't quite work yet - something's wrong in the
list setup).

On the other hand, you could just pop in on IRC at any time and ask
what's going on.


>2) Closely related: What is Geeklog 2. There some quite generic goals
>paper, but what is happenening in the development? You keep it for
>yourself.

I leave that for Tony to answer.


>2) I would need to apply some changes. First of all, I would like to
>avoid to set register_globals=Off.

We have stated repeatedly in the past that we do not plan to make Geeklog
1.3 work with register_globals=off since it would require just too many
changes and too much effort on retesting everything. We'll invest that
time instead on further developing Geeklog 1.3 and the development of
Geeklog 2 (which will be designed to work with register_globals=off from
the ground up).


>I submitted some patches, but there
>has been absolutely no reactions

I sent you an answer (on 2002-12-30). Did you not get it?

Your patches had (almost) nothing to do with register_globals=off anyway,
they just replaced some global debugging variables with constants. Which,
of course, is a nicer way of doing things, but not something that is
needed to get Geeklog running with register_globals=off.


>Indeed, it makes sense to allow only developers for the list. Only
>people interested in the deveopment should be allowed to post to the
>list. (Sigh, I've been rejected).

Subscribe to geeklog-devtalk and start posting ...


>I can't really find a precise reason for this split. Much bigger
>projects have only one development list, not a class A and a class B dev
>list.

The problem I see is: How do you separate would-be developers from people
who are actually providing input (through code or some other form).

I like the concept that Daryll mentioned: People who actually do provide
some code will be invited to join the list. We actually do that already -
several of the plugin developers are already on the devel list.

Again, the idea is not to clutter the devel list.


>These kind of things, that happen rarely, could be easily delt with
>through private mail. I do not think that hiding the whole developent
>discussions helps much.

Private mailing to more than one person is awkward - you always tend to
forget to put someone on the list of receivers.

A security list, geeklog-security at lists.geeklog.net has been set up now.
It's hidden from the list of mailing lists but will be listed in the
documentation and on geeklog.net as the address to post to in case of
security problems.


I'd say let's try the current list setup first and see if it works. If it
doesn't, we can still change it at any time ...

bye, Dirk


-- 
http://www.haun-online.de/
http://geeklog.info/