----- Original Message ----- > Hi Russ, > > On 01/14/2014 07:53 PM, R P Herrold wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Dave Neary wrote: > >> {{Feature|name=Network QoS|modules=network|version=3.3|status=Released}} > > > > Three additional suggestions: > > > > Isn't there a need for way to see: > > Appeared at > > Stable by > > Retired after > > I would suggest no - perhaps a "deprecated" field would be useful, but > I'm unaware of any feature which was added then later removed from the > project. > > There may be a use for a "Proposed" status - that is, the feature page > exists, but no-one's stepped up to code it yet - and an "Owner" field, > so that we can identify the primary developer of the feature. > > > As I read setup articles in the wiki, there seems to be such a > > life-cycle > > Set-up articles are slightly different - we will continually try to > improve and streamline the installation experience. But they wouldn't > come under "Feature pages" for me. > > > 2. Also, exposing: > > Last edited on: > > Last editor: > > > > would be a goodness -- I regularly receive direct email from > > folks not willing for wnatever reason to wade into a high > > volume mailing list, but seeking help, and having the ability > > to ** find ** someone, anyone authoring in a subject matter > > area is part of the FOSS ethic > > Yes, I think an "Updated on:" field would be good. In combination with
Wouldn't this be the same as the "last updated" field that we already have in the feature pages? > an "Owner" field, that should take care of your need. We have an entire "owner" section in the feature pages as well.. > > > 3. And having a formal machanism to formally catch > > Potentially stale: > > > > content, so that pages might be marked in one pass and 'on the > > fly', then later searched, and finally curated back to not > > 'Potentially stale' > > > > were markings I used when maintaininthg CentOS wiki presence, > > to combat entropy > > Again, it seems like you're thinking of this as something which might be > on all pages - its specifically for "feature pages" - they are > functional specs and design documents for features to be added to oVirt. > I don't think "potentially stale" applies (perhaps I'm wrong?). > > Cheers, > Dave. > > -- > Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact > Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com > Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13 > _______________________________________________ > Arch mailing list > Arch@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > _______________________________________________ Arch mailing list Arch@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch