Difference between revisions of "Projects/Restructuring techbase and userbase"

Jump to: navigation, search
(Initial creation of page)
(No difference)

Revision as of 15:14, 3 January 2009

The story so far:

  • IRC discussion:

<dhaumann>  steveire: I don't have much time, but maybe we can make
something out of it
<steveire>  Hey, so currently there's a projects structure in techbase,
which shows some apps and stuff
<steveire>  I think it would make more sense to use
techbase.kde.org/$MODULE or $APP etc. I mentioned it briefly earlier today
<steveire>  Since we don't have much time, I'll just quickly say what I'm
going to propose so you know. Modules and apps get top level urls. I don't
see much need to try to maintain a parent child relationship between pages
because none really exsits. Parents don't have a list of children and
children don't have a link to their parent (although I think that can be
turned on). And I don't think it would be chaos to allow apps and modules
have top level urls.
<dhaumann>  steveire: it'll lead to people adding stuff to techbase that
doesn't belong there I fear.
<steveire>  Also, we should probably think about what MW features we want
to use and be consistent about it. I mean there's the subpage feature
(which we're already pretty consistent about) and the categories feature
(which I don't think we're very constistent about yet.
<dhaumann>  that's why we have the rather strict structure for now.
<steveire>  dhaumann: Like what for example?
<dhaumann>  steveire: see wiki.kde.org
<dhaumann>  that's *the* example.
<dhaumann>  steveire: meanwhile, I do think that e.g. a Plasma toplevel
item makes sense
<steveire>  I've never really used it, but I'll have a look. What was put
there that doesn't belong?
<dhaumann>  it's simply a *mess*
<dhaumann>  :)
<steveire>  Yes, but also, what is the focus of techbase.kde.org/plasma?
How to start contributing to it? Writing plasmoids? etc?
<dhaumann>  on techbase aaron was also pretty much involved. Unfortunately
he's not here right now, but I would like to have his input.
<steveire>  OK, well maybe I'll cc him too when I email kde-www about this
<dhaumann>  in Plasma/* could be all related to plasma. Contributing,
Tutorials, whatever
<dhaumann>  steveire: can you CC me as well?
<steveire>  Yes, sure
<dhaumann>  steveire: did you look at userbase already?
<steveire>  What do you mean look at?
<dhaumann>  how it is organized.
<steveire>  structure wise?
<steveire>  Ah, yes, well a bit. I'll look a bit more.
<dhaumann>  yes. they e.g. have Applications and Applicatins/Desktop
<dhaumann>  but then they link to [[KWin]] etc. so they don't add a 3rd
level but rather link to a new toplevelitem.
<dhaumann>  steveire: what I'd still like is to have subpages.
<steveire>  Yeah, I see http://userbase.kde.org/Applications/Graphics and
then http://userbase.kde.org/Gwenview, apps get a top level.
<dhaumann>  i.e. if we go to add [[$your_app]] then all related content to
this app should be in [[$your_app/*]]
<steveire>  dhaumann: Yes. There I agree.
<dhaumann>  that's something I'd agree with. Maybe the userbase people can
say something about it?
<steveire>  Hopefully. What I'm really looking for is concensus, and
definitely not silence.
<dhaumann>  yes :-)
<dhaumann>  steveire: let's have a look at
<dhaumann>  what we see here are candidates for toplevel items. in fact,
maybe all
<dhaumann>  I agree for the apps being toplevel. but for example should KDE
on Mac have a toplevel item as well?
<steveire>  http://userbase.kde.org/KJots << This page {{includes}}
http://userbase.kde.org/KJots/Tips and it's also {{included}} in Tutorials.
I think we could do more with that kind of structure. It looks like
userbase has section links turned off though, which makes editing it a
problem. Maybe we can get those back on.
<dhaumann>  you have to log in, iirc
<steveire>  dhaumann: Even logged in I don't see them. annew said the same
thing to me.
<dhaumann>  hm ok.
<dhaumann>  no idea then
<dhaumann>  steveire: about he {{:...} thing, how does it work exactly?
<steveire>  It works the same way as templates, except the leading : makes
it use the top level instead of looking in the Template: namespace.
<steveire>  {{Kjots/Tips}} would try to include {{Template:Kjots/Tips}},
but the leading : makes it not do that.
Part    Ingmar has left this channel.
<dhaumann>  steveire: is that maintainable?
<dhaumann>  thinking about having a page that gets its content from lots of
other pages :)
<dhaumann>  also it means duplication in several places. Is that desirable?
<dhaumann>  or what are the benefits
<dhaumann>  ?
<dhaumann>  I can imagine that it would help to have Plasma/Tutorials +
Development/Tutorials and then a plasma section.
<dhaumann>  is that it?
<steveire>  userbase/tutorials might be one example which would be reduced
to a series of {{:APP/Tips}}. I think it's less duplication.
<dhaumann>  what I meant is: you find the same content at different places,
which is duplication. :)
<steveire>  Right, yes I suppose, but I think you want that in some cases.
Tutorials would be an index of tips for all apps, but if I go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?go=Go&search=KJots, there is
still a section of tips on that page too.
<dhaumann>  steveire: e.g. if you search for KJots in the search edit
field, you will get the results KJots and KJots/Tips, which will then
display the same.
<steveire>  Hehe, I wrote \[\[KJots\]\] there
<dhaumann>  mh. not really problem maybe
<steveire>  I don't think it's a problem. We can even <noinclude> a link on
the tips page back to the app page.
<dhaumann>  I'm still not sure whether all this is a good idea :) but I'm
happy that people show interest
<dhaumann>  maybe we can get more feedback on the mailing list, at least
that's what i hope
<steveire>  Yes, sure. I just added a noinclude to
<steveire>  I'll try to put a summary of sorts together and send an email
later or tomorrow.
<steveire>  Thanks.
<dhaumann>  hm. well, that gives you a message if you are on the page
<dhaumann>  ok, cool.
<steveire>  If you're not familiar, <includeonly> is analogous, but in the
other way.
<dhaumann>  I know them
<dhaumann>  What I meant is it gives you a notice now that there is more in
the KJots page, but no more.
<dhaumann>  so it has no other effect wrt maintainability or structure.
<dhaumann>  nevermind.
<dhaumann>  have to leave :)
<dhaumann>  I'm looking forward to find a good solution :)
<steveire>  We could <includeonly>[[Category:Tips pages]]</includeonly> and
the tips pages would be in that category, but not the pages that
{{:include}} them
<steveire>  Cool, later.
<annew> steveire: I've just come in and read this
<annew> I was wondering how the include works, so that's helped me, thanks
<steveire>  annew: Hi, sure no problem.
<annew> steveire: I think we should try for consistency between userbase
and techbase
<annew> so could you keep me informed of discussions and decisions?
<steveire>  Also regarging the kjots icon being too big, I think it should
only be shown once anyway, and not used as a list item as it is now
<steveire>  annew: Are you on kde-www?
<annew> no - do you think I should be?
<annew> perhaps it makes sense
<steveire>  I'd like to see it as a place to discuss *base.kde.org.
<steveire>  I think it makes sense.
<annew> ok - I'll subscribe tonight
<steveire>  jucato was involved in setting up userbase too wasn't he?
<annew> I'm wondering about those section Edits -
<annew> I don't think all pages have them
<annew> I wonder whether there is something in the structure of the page
that decides that
<steveire>  Well, for example on http://userbase.kde.org/KJots, There
should be edit links beside Tips, like there's edit links by all the
secions here: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/KJots
<annew> steveire: it looks as though it's tied to heading levels
<steveire>  Oh?
<annew> which page did you look at when you couldn't see them?  can you
<steveire>  http://userbase.kde.org/KJots
<annew> I see an [edit] against Features and against Tips
<steveire>  Really? Maybe it's a user-side configuration issue...
<steveire>  Yep: http://userbase.kde.org/Special:Preferences
<annew> strange
<steveire>  We should check if that's the default for new accounts. Maybe I
changed it and don't remember
<annew> I don't know enough about this to check?
<steveire>  It's probably part of localsettings.php- You probably can't
<steveire>  Except by creating a new account.
<annew> do we have to get danimo or tstaerk to do this, or can you?
<steveire>  Nah, I'll create a test account and see what happens.
<steveire>  Hmm, looks like userbase only allows openid, and not 'normal'
<annew> yes - danimo insisted on that
<annew> it makes creating a test account non-trivial

Content is available under Creative Commons License SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted.