On May 9, 1:10 pm, Jayesh Wadhwani wrote:
> ADmad:
>
> "especially the ones which have almost nil probability of being
> accepted like yours"
>
> This is what I call arrogance.
Take a step back and look at the resources you ignored/didn't look for
before writing your article; One of cake's core
Please allow me to make a few remarks as an innocent bystander:
Jayesh Wadhwani wrote:
> "especially the ones which have almost nil probability of being
> accepted like yours"
>
> This is what I call arrogance.
Sure, that does not sound very polite, but it happens. Especially in
non-verbal commu
ADmad:
"especially the ones which have almost nil probability of being
accepted like yours"
This is what I call arrogance.
You have all this time to research my IRC chats. Did you by the way
tell me that you were a reviewer on the chat. Nope. Then why should I
care what you have to say. If you
on the thread "lets get rid of the bakery" a thread which turned into lets
resolve the issues with bakery
people interested in becoming reviewers should get in touch with
Graham Weldon (AKA: predominant)
- S
On 6 May 2010 17:53, Jamie wrote:
> How does one become a reviewer? I'd like to hel
How does one become a reviewer? I'd like to help out.
- Jamie
On May 6, 1:30 am, ADmad wrote:
> [1] "from what i see your helper outputs a nested list which can be
> achieved with HtmlHelper::nestedList or AD7six's TreeHelper behavior
> which has lot more features.. rest is jquery magic not much
[1] "from what i see your helper outputs a nested list which can be
achieved with HtmlHelper::nestedList or AD7six's TreeHelper behavior
which has lot more features.. rest is jquery magic not much too do
with cake". (Thanks Andy for digging this up, i had forgotten about
it). As shown I gave you a
>From the log:
"It's not much of an article... more of a code snippet. "
"from what i see your helper outputs a nested list which can be
achieved with HtmlHelper::nestedList or AD7six's TreeHelper behavior
which has lot more features.."
This looks like more then just "not a nice article".
Did yo
On May 4, 11:13 pm, Jayesh Wadhwani wrote:
> There was no discussion. I did talk to someone about the status and
> all I got was that it was not a nice article.
>
> I am not not selling this stuff. It is just a contribution. If it
> helps even one programmer it is ok. Like I said it is only a
>
There was no discussion. I did talk to someone about the status and
all I got was that it was not a nice article.
I am not not selling this stuff. It is just a contribution. If it
helps even one programmer it is ok. Like I said it is only a
contribution.
If you are a core member and cannot profes
On Apr 29, 11:22 pm, jacmoe wrote:
> I was maybe a bit too harsh, but Mr. Wadhwani failed to notice that we
> are indeed trying to fix the issues, and that this is not borne out of
> arrogance.
> I understand that he's pissed off, of course.
> And that he's letting out some steam.
while the bak
I was maybe a bit too harsh, but Mr. Wadhwani failed to notice that we
are indeed trying to fix the issues, and that this is not borne out of
arrogance.
I understand that he's pissed off, of course.
And that he's letting out some steam.
> So if you look your questions to me you will notice that it
Lets keep this civil, people.
Jayesh, I do hope that you consider writing for the bakery or other CakePHP
related resources again. Each contribution that is made by the community is
a valuable addition to the resource base that is already largely community
built. We appreciate every piece of infor
Jacmoe, I can't agree with you!
Jayesh W did not complain about the Bakery itself, but about the
process of having submitted an article, which was then deleted,
without a reviewer having informed of the reason for it!
That should never happen!
John
On Apr 29, 6:51 pm, jacmoe wrote:
> Good ridd
Good riddance.
I don't think I've seen such an arrogant attitude in the CakePHP
community before.
I mean: this has been amply covered in this 'topic', and the topic I
started.
Accept the fact that CakePHP is an open source, open community
project, or get lost.
If you paid for the service, then y
On Apr 29, 6:16 am, Jayesh Wadhwani wrote:
> Like I said it does seem to breed arrogance.
>
> Writing for the bakery needs time and effort. When developers put in
> such an effort they are doing that to disburse their knowledge to
> other developers. Their efforts should be lauded and not taken
Like I said it does seem to breed arrogance.
Writing for the bakery needs time and effort. When developers put in
such an effort they are doing that to disburse their knowledge to
other developers. Their efforts should be lauded and not taken lightly
or their work criticized.
So if you look your
I think Graham referred to whatever Bakery replaces the current one as
the Bakery 2 - I don't think there's any in development.
They are focusing all their efforts on Cakephp 1.3 and onwards.
However..
I see that José Gonzales is busy doing work on a Bakery fork..
I wonder what he's up to? :)
On
@Jacob:
Ah, I did misunderstand. I apologize. Maybe I will fork the code and
make a merge request to fix the blank e-mails problem. Though I wasn't
aware that Bakery 2.0 was in development. I may try to help with that
instead.
On Apr 25, 5:49 pm, jacmoe wrote:
> I think you misunderstand:
> When
Excellent thoughts there keymaster.
Although i loathe Joomla, that site looks fairly well organised, categorised
for easy browsing, and its overall a great resource for people looking to
extend their Joomla installation. Last I checked, Mariano was working on a
CakePHP project that would serve as
I understand outsourcing the SCM to github, the tickets to Lighthouse,
the forum to Google Groups, and using cakePHP.org as the glue which
ties everything together. To me that is absolutely the right way to
go, as it frees up manpower to develop framework code.
Perhaps we need a better way of trac
I have a few articles published in the Bakery. This does not make me
an authority on the subject but Since my first one was back in 2007 (I
think), before it was even called the Bakery, I do have some
experience of it over a pretty long time.
My personal set of guidelines for writing articles are:
Most definitely. We're keeping pretty busy with work on the core at the
moment, with releases for 1.2.7 and 1.3.0 out recently, we have a fair load
of work ahead to push through on CakePHP 2.0.
If anyone has an interest in developing and working on the bakery, we would
very much welcome it.
Cheer
I think you misunderstand:
When you make a fork of a project on Github, you can make merge
requests back.
Which means that if you're unsatisfied with the Bakery (as software),
just fork it, fix it, and make a merge request.
Even for small fixes, doesn't matter.
I am sure Graham and Mark and the res
I haven't published anything on the Bakery except for comments, so I
can't comment on the process. However, I will note that the software
is pretty screwed up. All my article reply notifications are blank e-
mails--not even a link to the comment/article. I personally hate it
when people send me e-m
That doesn't give you carte blanche to be arrogant, does it?
What have you done for CakePHP if I may ask? :)
A couple of weeks ago I posted this topic:
http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php/browse_thread/thread/e3a1f46982bddd46#
With the title 'Let's get rid of The Bakery'.
I volunteered as a
The Bakery is supposed to be a place where cakePHP developers exchange
ideas which in turn enhances the framework.
I recently published a helper and it languished for pending review for
weeks on end. I visited the IRC and other than rude and arrogant
answers there was not much help.
I did not rec
26 matches
Mail list logo
